Court Opinion

ID: 9600224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:25:11.590543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:51.257374
License: Public Domain

WORTHEN, Justice
(concurring).
I am in agreement generally with the views set out in the opinion of the court and agree that the Act is constitutional-However, the plaintiffs sought a determination of the duties of the Redistricting Committee provided for in Chapter 61, Laws of 1955, as well as the determination of the constitutionality of the Act.
Since the trial court determined the Act unconstitutional because of the use of the double ratio, and because it was arbitrary and capricious, it did not pass on the issues; as to the validity of the provisions therein as to the appointment of the Redistricting' Committee and their powers and functions, thereunder, for the reason that the same were moot. This being a declaratory judgment action, its purpose is to settle and af*207ford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the duties of the Redistricting Committee which should be accomplished with expedition.
I am of the opinion that the case should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to make a determination of the other matters which would undoubtedly have been decided had the trial court concluded that the Act is constitutional.