Opinion ID: 887019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: History of Article V, Section 4 at the Constitutional Convention

Text: ¶ 18 Recognizing that the text of Article V, Section 14, of the Montana Constitution does not specifically mention holdover senators, we look to the transcripts of the constitutional convention relating to the adoption of this provision. The rule is well established that, in construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings of the constitutional convention. School Dist. No. 12, Phillips County v. Hughes (1976), 170 Mont. 267, 272, 552 P.2d 328, 331. ¶ 19 In 1972, the Constitutional Convention delegates were keenly aware that political differences had stymied most legislative attempts to redistrict. This state of affairs was recognized in the legislative committee's proposal, introduced by Delegate Skari, as follows: The Montana experience was that in 1965 the Legislature was unable to reapportion. About a dozen bills were introduced, and not a single one was accepted. Consequently, it fell to the federal District Court to reapportion the state. In 1971 the Legislature drew up one plan which was invalid because of a 37 percent variance. After working through the regular session [and] one special session, the Legislature finally came up with the present plan in the second special session.... Mont. Const. Conv. Tr., Vol. IV at 682. ¶ 20 In response to this untenable situation, the Constitutional Convention assigned the duty of redistricting to a separate body, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission. Noting the conflict of interest inherent in having the Legislature redistrict itself, Delegate Skari explained the purpose behind the Commission as follows: The majority report recommends the establishment of a commission on reapportionment and redistricting which would initiate a reapportionment and redistricting plan which would essentiallywhich would be appointed by the legislative leadership but would be somewhat independent and autonomous. It would, in effect, bypass the Legislature from this point on. Mont. Const. Conv. Tr., Vol. IV at 682 (emphasis added). ¶ 21 In recognition of the inherent difficulties in having the legislators redistrict, Delegate Blend stated: I do not think that the Legislature is psychologically fitted to reapportion itself. I think it's too lengthy a program for them to undertake for something that should be accomplished by a nonpartisan, or at least impartial group. Mont. Const. Conv. Tr., Vol. IV at 685. In a similar vein, Delegate Schiltz observed that, the Legislature is totally unable to reapportion itself. It has too many interests that are not necessarily in accord with the broad interests of the state, and this kind of a commission would do it. Mont. Const. Conv. Tr., Vol. IV at 720. ¶ 22 With the advent of single-member districts and residency requirements, it was anticipated that the redistricting would become even more thorny in the future. Mont. Const. Conv. Tr., Vol. IV at 682 (Delegate Skari). The Senators suggest that Delegate Skari's observation about residency requirements illustrates that the Convention delegates were, in fact, addressing the issue of holdover senators since residency requirements are relevant to the redistricting process only as it concerns assignment of holdovers. Secretary Brown does not dispute this assertion. ¶ 23 It is clear from the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention that, in recognition of the Legislature's inability to redistrict itself, the Convention assigned the task of redistricting to the Commission an independent, autonomous entity and limited the Legislature's role to that of making recommendations. We now turn to the history of the implementation of Article V, Section 14. History of Implementation of Article V, Section 14 ¶ 24 As the District Court aptly noted, the conclusion that the assignment of holdover senators is part and parcel of the redistricting process is not a novel approach. ¶ 25 The Constitution requires that within ninety days after each decennial census, the Commission shall file its final plan for congressional districts with the Secretary of State. Since the 1972 Constitutional Convention, there have been three federal censuses: in the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. In 1980, there was a controversy over whether senators should be held over at all. In response to an inquiry from the Senate, the Attorney General issued an opinion stating that the Commission had inherent authority to resolve details such as how holdover senators fit into the reapportionment plan. 40 Mont. Op. Atty. Gen. 7 (1983). The 1983 Senate subsequently criticized the Commission for failing to assign holdovers in its draft plan. [1] ¶ 26 After the federal census in 1990, the Commission honored the Attorney General's instructions and included assignments for holdover senators, including then-Senator Bob Brown, as part of its plan. The plan was filed and became law. Although the history of implementation does not address the ultimate issue of constitutionality, it certainly illustrates decades of consensus that the Commission's authority to redistrict necessarily includes the assignment of holdover senators.