Opinion ID: 2154803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of Part II, Article 26

Text: We begin with a discussion of the one person/one vote standard under our own constitution. The New Hampshire Constitution guarantees that each citizen's vote will have equal weight. N.H. CONST., pt. I, art. 11. To ensure this right, Part II, Article 26 of the State Constitution, as amended in 1964, requires that the State be divided into single-member [senate] districts, as nearly equal as may be in population. N.H. CONST., pt. II, art. 26. This is our first opportunity to interpret the phrase as nearly equal as may be in population. This phrase was added to Part II, Article 26 as a result of the Constitutional Convention in 1964. See Journal of Constitutional Convention 305, 317 (1964). Prior to the 1964 amendment, senate districts were apportioned on the basis of taxes, not population. See Levitt v. Maynard, 104 N.H. 243, 245, 182 A.2d 897 (1962). New Hampshire [was] the only state which ... carried the principle of no taxation without representation to its ultimate conclusion. Its Senate districts [were] determined by the proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts. Id. (quotations omitted). Prior to 1964, Part II, Article 26 read as follows: And that the state may be equally represented in the senate, the legislature shall, from time to time divide the state into twenty-four districts, as nearly equal as may be without dividing towns and unincorporated places; and in making this division, they shall govern themselves by the proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts, and timely make known to the inhabitants of the state the limits of each district. Id. (quotation omitted). Even though the constitution required redistricting, before the 1964 amendment the legislature rarely redistricted the senate. Indeed, senate districts drawn in 1915 were not redrawn until 1961. See id. In 1964, a resolution was introduced at the Constitutional Convention seeking to change the basis for senate apportionment from taxes to population. The matter came to the convention [a]s a result of recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the concern that [i]t [was] only a matter of time before our system of apportioning State Senate Districts according to taxable property was declared unconstitutional. Journal of Constitutional Convention, supra at 48. Approximately one week after the convention began, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued its opinion in Levitt v. Stark, 233 F.Supp. 566 (D.N.H.1964). In Levitt, the federal court stated that it entertain[ed] serious doubt of the federal constitutional validity of the New Hampshire method for selecting the members of the legislature. Levitt, 233 F.Supp. at 569. The court noted, however, that the United States Supreme Court had not yet held that both houses of a bicameral state legislature had to be apportioned on the basis of population, and intimated that if only one of the houses of the New Hampshire Legislature were apportioned on the basis of population, the other house might survive federal court scrutiny. Id. The convention, at first, wrestled with making changes to the method of apportioning the house of representatives. When this proved too difficult, the convention turned its attention to senate apportionment. Journal of Constitutional Convention, supra at 272. As one of the delegates noted: I have stood before groups repeatedly and told them that it was not necessary to adjust the House situation as long as we adjusted the Senate situation.... [Y]esterday we did not adjust the House situation so as to make it consonant with what the Supreme Court wants.... But what is important right now is that we put the Senate on a population basis because of the fact that we have left the House as we left it yesterday.... Now if we make our Senate consonant with the principle of equality in representation, then what we did yesterday is fine. If we don't here today make it consonant, we have left ourselves open to question. Id. at 272-73. The convention thus resolved to amend Part II, Article 26 to make clear that senate districts would be apportioned based upon population equality and would be redrawn every ten years, following the decennial census. Id. at 280. As a result of the convention's resolution, in November 1964, voters were asked, Are you in favor of amending the constitution to apportion the senate districts on the basis of population as equally as possible without dividing any town, ward or place? Id. at 305. Consequently, Part II, Article 26 was amended to state: And that the state may be equally represented in the senate, the legislature shall divide the state into single-member districts, as nearly equal as may be in population, each consisting of contiguous towns, city wards and unincorporated places, without dividing any town, city ward or unincorporated place. The legislature shall form the single-member districts at its next session after approval of this article by the voters of the state and thereafter at the regular session following each decennial federal census. N.H. CONST., pt. II, art. 26. In light of the history of the 1964 amendment to Part II, Article 26, we hold that the phrase as nearly equal as may be in population is at least as protective of the citizens' voting rights as the federal constitutional standard of one person/one vote. Accordingly, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis and we base this decision upon Part II, Article 26. See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233, 471 A.2d 347 (1983). We rely upon federal cases interpreting the Federal Constitution only to aid in our analysis. See id.