Opinion ID: 2540510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: House Bill 1 Violates Section 33 of the Kentucky Constitution by Failing to Divide the Fewest Number of Counties Possible.

Text: Fischer II requires division of the fewest number of counties mathematically possible in reapportionment plans. [16] The LRC contends this is a judge-made standard not mandated by the Kentucky Constitution and that this standard should be replaced with a good faith requirement to divide only the fewest number of counties as is politically possible. [17] We disagree. The text of Section 33 is clear that as between the competing concepts of population equality and county integrity, the latter is of at least equal importance. The probability of population inequality is acknowledged, but the command with respect to the division of any county is absolute. [18] And complying with Section 33's prohibition against split counties would violate equal protection principles. [19] So we recognized in Fischer II that Kentucky avoided federal preemption because our earlier decisions [20] construed Section 33 to give primacy to population equality. [21] But we firmly stated that total destruction of county integrity is not required and should be balanced with population equality to accommodate both. [22] We reaffirm this assertion today. Contrary to the LRC's argument, this Court did not retreat from the importance of county integrity in Jensen. [23] The appellant in that case asked the Court to place an even greater emphasis on the preservation of county integrity by permitting slightly greater population variations than plus-or-minus 5 [percent.] [24] In rejecting the appellant's contention, we recognized that the requirement of approximate equality of population must control when it is incompatible with the goals of maintaining county integrity. [25] But this does not represent a relaxation of the county integrity principle. The Jensen Court explained that population equality cannot be disregarded in order to maintain county integrity. Rather, after satisfying the requirement of approximate equality of population, the next priority of a reapportionment plan is the preservation of county integrity, which is accomplished by dividing the fewest possible number of counties. [26] Although the concern for population equality overrides the maintenance of county integrity, Section 33 of the Constitution mandates county integrity. The LRC is correct that Section 33 does not require division of the fewest number of counties possible; it actually prohibits the division of any county. Although we cannot uphold the mandate of Section 33 without violating equal protection, we also cannot ignore the drafters' goal of preserving county integrity. [27] It is a cardinal rule of construction that the different sections of the Constitution shall be construed as a whole so as to harmonize the various provisions and not to produce a conflict between them. [28] Another rule of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the instrument and of the people adopting it. The Constitution should not be construed so as to defeat the obvious intent of its framers if another interpretation may be adopted equally in accordance with the words and sense which will carry out the intent. The intent must be gathered both from the letter and the spirit of the document. [29] Applying these principles, we are not free to disregard the drafters' intent to preserve county integrity by striking the provision from Section 33. [30] We must harmonize the dual mandates to the greatest extent possible while achieving the overarching goal of population equality. The Fischer II Court appropriately balanced these goals by requiring reapportionment plans divide the mathematically fewest number of counties possible. House Bill 1 violates Section 33 of the Constitution because it fails to divide the fewest number of counties possible. The record demonstrates that alternative plans were proposed in both chambers to divide as few as 24 counties in the House districts and 4 counties in the Senate districts. [31] But House Bill 1 divides 28 counties in the House districts and 5 counties in the Senate districts. The trial court correctly found that these reapportionment plans violate Section 33.