Court Opinion

ID: 9682986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:20:17.669101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:43.681568
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinions in, “Fischer I, ” “Fischer II, ” and “Fischer III, ” as well as the respective dissents to those opinions, represent good faith efforts by the Kentucky General Assembly and the courts of this Commonwealth to satisfy the increasingly difficult mandates of the United States Supreme Court generated by Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) and its progeny. It is my opinion that Baker v. Carr takes federalism too far in imposing the theory of “one man-one vote” as a constitutional requirement in legislative apportionment. Compliance with Baker v. Carr challenges the sovereignty of states and disrupts the integrity of many long established and well-functioning legislative districts. Compliance with the federal mandates has demonstrated that achieving the federally-mandated “one man-one vote” redistricting disrupts and impairs the identity, continuity, and sense of community of units of government established to represent a constituency having common interests. As demographies become more fluid, complying with Baker v. Carr will become progressively more difficult, if not impossible. In a mobile society where less than 50 percent of the people bother to vote, the egalitarianism desired in Baker is irrelevant.
Some political scientists have proposed that the United States Constitution should be amended to remove the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to dictate political matters to the states. A solution worthy of exploration to the federal mandate is for the Commonwealth of Kentucky to amend its Constitution to allow each county, and perhaps each political unit in the larger counties, to be proportionately represented in the General Assembly. Another possible approach would be to borrow from the federal model whereby one house is apportioned to population and the other on political subdivision.
By placing isolated precincts from a county within a district containing a much larger county effectively precludes well-qualified citizens in the isolated precincts from ever being elected to the General Assembly due to demographic disadvantages.