Court Opinion

ID: 9720849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:43:02.680785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.709388
License: Public Domain

STRUTZ, Judge
(concurring).
I join the other members of the court in holding invalid the apportionment plan adopted by the apportionment board. I cannot, however, agree with the opinion in holding that, in apportioning the additional fifty-four representatives, the sixty-one which have been apportioned by the Constitution on the basis of one to a county must be taken into consideration. The opinion points out that a literal interpretation of this provision would lead to absurd results and that this court therefore should interpret the provision in such a way as to make effective what ought to be the aim of the provision being interpreted.
A court is permitted to construe a constitutional provision only where the meaning of that provision is in doubt. This court has held that, in the construction of a constitutional provision, words are to be given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. Bronson v. Johnson, 76 N.D. 122, 33 N.W.2d 819; Cowl v. Wentz (N.D.), 107 N.W.2d 697. I do not believe the provision of Section 35, providing for the apportionment of the additional representatives, leaves any room for doubt. That section, after providing for one representative for each county, reads:
“In addition the Legislative Assembly shall, at the first regular session after each federal decennial census, proceed to apportion the balance of the members of the House of Representatives to be elected from the several senatorial districts, within the limits prescribed by this Constitution, according to the population of the several senatorial dis~ tricts.” (Emphasis supplied.)
How the language “according to the population of the several senatorial districts”' leaves room for a judicial interpretation, I cannot understand. The clear meaning of the language used is that the balance of fifty-four representatives shall be apportioned among the senatorial districts “according to the population of the several senatorial districts,” regardless of whether the senatorial district is composed of one,, or more than one, county. I realize that to give this provision a literal interpretation will lead to ridiculous results, but Section 35 itself is ridiculous. I do not believe this, court should say that black means white or that up means down, even if by so doing we should make an absurd provision of the. Constitution a little less preposterous.