Court Opinion

ID: 9657568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:30:25.25969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.391166
License: Public Domain

*691TEIGEN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The maj ority have struck down the whole of Chapter 11-07, N.D.C.C., as being unconstitutional. I do not agree that the whole chapter is unconstitutional. I feel that portion of Section 11-07-04, N.D.C.C., which reads: “nor shall any county be so redistricted that any municipality therein shall form any part of a majority of the commissioner districts in such county.”, is unconstitutional under the decision cited in the majority opinion of Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45, decided by the United States Supreme Court and released on April 1, 1968. The United States Supreme Court, in that case, held that the actions of local government are the actions of the state and that when the state delegates law making power to local governments and provides for the election of local officials from districts specified by statute, ordinance, or local charter it must insure that those qualified to vote have the right to an equally effective voice in the election process or otherwise it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the court states the equal protection clause reaches the exercise of state power however manifested whether exercised directly or through municipal subdivisions of the state where the unit of local government has general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body. Thus, the test applied in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, that the body’s function was “legislative” is no longer applicable as a limitation but this ruling has been extended to apply to all units of government having “general governmental powers”. There being no doubt that the hoard of county commissioners exercises “general governmental powers” over the entire geographic area which it serves, the holding of the majority is correct in this respect.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that because one part of the statute is unconstitutional the entire section or the entire chapter is violative of the constitution. I am of the opinion that the invalid part of the chapter may be stricken without impairing the remainder of the procedure providing for the redistricting of the county. The objectionable part of the statute was added by an amendment to the law passed in 1949. See Chapter 117, S.L.1949. That amendment added to the statute the words: “nor shall any county be so redistricted that any municipality therein shall form any part of a majority of the commissioner districts in such county.”
“Although it is manifest that an unconstitutional provision in a statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions, nonetheless it is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another and that if the invalid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out and rejected. Indeed, it has been said that whenever a statute contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the court so to declare and to maintain the act insofar as it is valid.
“The natural corollary to the rule is as firmly affixed in the field of constitutional law as the rule itself. It is that where it is not possible to separate that part of an act which is unconstitutional from the rest of the act, the whole statute falls.” 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law, Section 181, p. 409.
This is also the law in North Dakota. In Menz v. Coyle, 117 N.W.2d 290 (N.D.); Kessler v. Thompson, 75 N.W.2d 172 (N. D.); Department of State Highways v. Baker, 69 N.D. 702, 290 N.W. 257, 129 A.L. R. 925; State ex rel. Cleveringa v. Klein, 63 N.D. 514, 249 N.W. 118, 86 A.L.R. 1523; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; State v. Bickford, 28 N.D. 36, 147 N.W. 407, Ann.Cas.1916D, 140; Malin v. La Moure County, 27 N.D. 140, 145 N.W. 582, 50 L.R. A.,N.S., 997, Ann.Cas.1916C, 207; Becker *692County Sand & Gravel Co. v. Wosick, 62 N.D. 740, 245 N.W. 454.
In my opinion the objectionable clause contained in Section 11-07-04, quoted above, which is violative of the constitution, may be stricken and there still remains a complete and workable scheme of legislation which is wholly unaffected as to purpose and efficacy by the part eliminated. In fact, it was the scheme of the legislation prior to the 1949 amendment by the legislature. There is no reason to speculate that the legislature would not have passed one without the other. There is no presumption of entirety in effect, but an opposite presumption of separability. The constitutional and unconstitutional portions are not dependent on each other and it is clear that the purpose of the amendment was to accomplish a single object by the insertion of a new and wholly foreign condition not related to the other provisions of the chapter. 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law, Section 186, p. 414.
The majority have held that Section 11-07-03 is also unconstitutional. With this I do not agree. This section provides that when the redistricting board meets at the call of the county auditor to consider the petition for redistricting filed with him (as provided by Section 11-07-02, N.D.C.C.), that before acting upon the petition they must first determine whether it appears that the commissioners’ districts are “not reasonably equal in population or extent of territory” and if they find either of these conditions exist, they shall then “proceed at once to redistrict.”
The conditions imposed upon the redistricting board by this statute involve a legislative policy which should not be encroached upon by the courts. It is not for the courts to determine the wisdom of a statute and this is particularly so where the statute was enacted by the legislature to guide a public body of its creation to which it has delegated a legislative power. The power of a state in controlling its own governmental agency and political subdivisions, is generally unrestrained by the requirement of due process of law, since it is a limitation upon the state itself. 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 570, p. 588.
Furthermore, the redistricting board has not challenged the constitutionality of Section 11-07-03, N.D.C.C., and it is a fundamental rule that the constitutionality of a statute may not be challenged except by one who is injured or aggrieved by it. There is no evidence that the plaintiff in this action is so injured or affected by this section.
Section 11-07-03 does not provide the method by which the redistricting is to be accomplished, nor is it any guideline to the redistricting board in redistricting. In redistricting, it is governed by Section 11 — 07— 04 as it remains after the objectionable and unconstitutional language is eliminated. This section provides that in redistricting the county, the board shall make the “districts as regular and compact in form as practicable, and as nearly equal in population as possible.” It provides the formula which it must apply in making its determination. There are two elements which must be taken into consideration; one involves the area, and the other is population. To be “regular”, I believe the boundaries must be “steady or uniform in course, practice, or occurrence: not subject to unexplained or irrational variation: steadily pursued: orderly”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. It must also be “compact”, that is: “firmly put together, joined or integrated”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. There is no requirement that the districts be equal in size or area. The statute merley provides that the districts shall be as regular and compact in form as practicable. However, each district must be “as nearly equal in population as possible.” This is a mandate. Thus, although under Section 11-07-03, the extent of territory of a district or the districts shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the board shall assume jurisdiction, it is not a consideration to be taken into account if they redistrict. In determining the form of the districts, the board must also take into *693consideration residence of the then acting county commissioners as the districts must be so formed that two of them do not reside in the same district. This requirement relates to the form the district shall take.
Lest it be argued that the redistricting board must also take into consideration the extent of territory in redistricting (because it is referred to in Section 11-07-03), I wish to point out that the word “practicable” referring to the districts and the word “possible” referring to the equality in population, are not synonymous. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “practicable” as: “capable of being put into practice, done, or accomplished; feasible”. The word “possible” is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “being within or up to the limits of one’s ability or capacity as determined by nature, authority, circumstances, or other controlling factor”.
South Carolina held that in regulations of its public service commission requiring that the crossing span of a power line be “as short as practicable” that “practicable” did not mean “possible”. Woody v. South Carolina Power Co., 202 S.C. 73, 24 S.E.2d 121.
In the case of In re Kenilworth Bldg. Corporation, 105 F.2d 673 (7th Cir.) the federal circuit court held in construing the Federal Bankruptcy Statute, that the word “practicable” is not synonymous with “possible” but means “feasible, fair and convenient” to the same effect as In re Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 104 F.2d 126 (3d Cir.). For these reasons I conclude that the predominating and controlling factor to be taken into consideration in determining the practicable form of the new districts is the population in each of the districts which must be as nearly equal as possible. This meets the federal standard as determined by a recent United States Supreme Court decision.
Lastly, the majority has found that Section 11-07-02 is also invalid, in that it violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. They appear to premise their reasoning on the fact that the statute works a hardship upon the aggrieved person because it requires him to obtain the signatures of twenty-five per cent of the electors of the county as determined by the number of votes cast for the office of Governor in the preceding general election. There is no claim that it is discriminatory or arbitrary. The guaranty of due process, viewed in its procedural aspect, requires no particular form of procedure, nor does it control forms of procedure in state courts or regulate the practice therein. This is peculiarly the subject of state regulation and control. 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law, Section 549, p. 943. The fact that a rule of law may, in certain instances, work a hardship, does not violate the due process clause of the constitution, provided it operates without any discrimination, and, in like manner, against all persons of a class. 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law, Section 551, p. 949. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512, 6 S.Ct. 110, 29 L.Ed. 463. There are numerous provisions in our statutes providing for the activation of some legislative process by petition. A quick perusal of the statutes governing counties discloses that a petition must be filed containing the signatures of fifty per cent of the electors in unorganized territory to form a county (Section 11-02-02, N.D. C.C.) and a petition containing fifty per cent of such electors are necessary to activate proceedings to obtain a division of a county or counties into new counties, (Section 11-03-02, N.D.C.C.). That, to increase the number of commissioners’ districts and commissioners from three to five, or to decrease the same from five to three, requires a petition signed by twenty per cent of the electors, (Section 11-12-01, N.D.C.C.), and to initiate a proceeding to consolidate the counties requires the filing of a petition containing the signatures of thirty per cent of the qualified voters of a petitioning county (Section 11-05-02, N.D.C.C.). I do not believe the majority have correctly applied the due process clause of the federal constitution in this case.
*694For these reasons, I do not agree it was proper to hold the entire chapter unconstitutional. Under the decision as I would make it, the remaining portion of the statute would permit this petitioner to proceed on filing the required petition with the county auditor and reapportionment of the county commissioners’ districts could be effected in Cass County before the next election.