Court Opinion

ID: 9740436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:35:31.410255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.279408
License: Public Domain

Achor, J.
— Relators ask this court for a writ of mandate and prohibition restricting and confining the respondents to their lawful jurisdiction in a certain cause of action now pending in the Marion Superior Court, Room No. 5, entitled: State of Indiana on the relation of Nelson G. Grills, plaintiff, v. Matthew E. Welsh, Edwin M. S. Steers, James E. Noland, as the Indiana State Election Board, defendants, Cause No. S62-1985.
. Specifically, relators’ petition asks this court for a writ of- mandate commanding the respondent judge to dismiss said cause and that respondent be prohibited from entering any further orders, judgments or decrees therein [other than the dismissal. of said cause], until further order of this court. We issued a temporary writ.
■ In the trial court the plaintiff, Nelson G. Grills, asked the court:
“To Mandate the Defendants [Indiana State Election Board] to adopt rules and regulations and engage in any other acts necessary in the opinions of the Defendants to provide a fair, legal and orderly conduct of the election [of] Members of the 93rd General Assembly by providing an apportioning of Members of the General Assembly among the several counties according to the number of male inhabitants above 21 years of age, and the Defendants be Mandated further not to permit in its supervision over local ■elections the election of Members of the General Assembly from districts apportioned under Chapter 78 and Chapter 271 of the Acts of 1921.
*309In the case the trial court issued a writ of mandate as prayed.
The constitutional provisions regarding apportionment are as follows:
“The General Assembly shall, at its second session after the adoption of this Constitution, and every sixth year thereafter, cause an enumeration to be made of all the male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years.” Art. 4, §4 Indiana Constitution.
“The number of Senators and Representatives shall, at the session next following each period of making such enumeration, be fixed by law, and apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of male inhabitants, above twenty-one years of age, in each: Provided, that the first and second elections of members of the General Assembly, under this Constitution, shall be according to the apportionment last made by the General Assembly, before the adoption of this constitution.” Art. 4, §5 Indiana Constitution. [Our italics.]
Indiana was last reapportioned by the General Assembly in 1921 [ch. 78, §2, p. 174 and ch. 271, §§1 and 2, p. 843, being §§34-101 to 34-104, inclusive].
Faced with the fact that neither the legislature nor the governor have acted to accomplish reapportionment in Indiana, this court is now asked to approve the. mandate of the trial court whereby the State Election Board was ordered to reapportion the state and conduct an election accordingly. In deciding the issue, we are governed by the fact that neither the need for reapportionment, nor the failure of those responsible therefor, can. justify the employment of unlawful means not contemplated within the constitutional framework of our government as a method of accomplishing reapportionment, however desirable. Thus, the specific issue for this *310court to determine is: Did the Marion Superior Court, Room 5, have jurisdiction, to order the State Election Board to reapportion the state of Indiana and to conduct an election accordingly?
As heretofore noted, under the constitution, reapportionment of the members of the General Assembly is a responsibility cast upon the General Assembly itself.
In support of its position that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings before it, respondent has cited and relied upon the following cases in which the court took jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether acts of the legislature which reapportioned the state were, in fact, constitutional. Brooks v. State, ex rel. (1904), 162 Ind. 568, 70 N. E. 980; Denney, Clerk, et al. v. The State, ex rel. Basler (1895), 144 Ind. 503, 42 N. E. 929; Parker et al. v. The State, ex rel. Powell (1893), 133 Ind. 178, 32 N .E. 836, 33 N. E. 119.
The foregoing cases are distinguishable from the case at bar. In those cases the court merely ruled upon the constitutionality of reapportionment acts previously passed by the legislature. This, the court may do with propriety. However, in the primary case, the plaintiff is asking a court to mandate the State Election Board to reapportion the state and conduct an election accordingly, although the power of reapportionment is, by constitution, vested solely in the General Assembly.
The powers and duties of the State Election Board have been stated by the legislature as follows:
“The board is hereby vested with the power and charged with the duty of supervising all elections and administering the election laws of the state in their state-wide application and espe-*311ially as .-they relate; to federal and state "elective officers.
Said board, subject to the provisions of the laws of this state, shall have the power, and it Shall be its duty, to formulate, adopt and promulgate rules and regulations governing the conduct of elections. . . .” Acts 1945, ch. 208, §11, p. 680, being §29-3004, Burns’ 1949 Repl.
Thus, the State Election Board is merely an administrative body created by the legislature to perform the specific and limited functions of “supervising all elections and administering the election laws of the state . . . [and] adopt and promulgate rules and regulations . . .” for that purpose. §29-3004, supra. ■ The authority thus vested in the State Election Board does not, under- any theory, vest the board with the power and authority to make a reapportionment of the General Assembly or to- conduct an election in any manner other than as provided by the election laws of the state as enacted by the legislature which created the board [§29-3004, supra.}.
We conclude therefore that the respondent court had no jurisdiction- to mandate the performance of this act by the State Election Board.
The temporary writ of mandate heretofore issued is made permanent.
Arterburn, C. J., Bobbitt and Landis, JJ., concur,
Jackson, J., concurs with opinion.