Court Opinion

ID: 9797605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:25:21.045881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:24.265027
License: Public Domain

OPINION
WATT, Vice Chief Justice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 1 Plaintiffs-Appellees, as residents and registered voters of the State of Oklahoma, filed their petition in this case, seeking in-junctive relief to ensure compliance with the federal laws governing congressional elections in the State of Oklahoma as a result of the 2000 Decennial Census. The petition was amended to request the additional relief of a declaration that The Oklahoma Congressional Redistricting Act of 1991, 14 O.S. § 5.1 et seq., is unconstitutional. Appellees alleged it was determined by the 2000 Census that the number of Congressional districts in Oklahoma must be reduced from six to five because Oklahoma’s population had failed to grow as fast as that of many other states since the 1990 Decennial Census. The 2000 census revealed that Oklahoma’s population as a percentage of the nation’s entire population decreased from what it had been under the 1990 census. Defendants-Appellants were sued in their official capacities.1
¶ 2 Appellees alleged in their amended petition, filed February 21, 2002, that the Oklahoma Legislature had not yet adopted a redistricting plan and that the qualifying deadline for candidacy for the United States House of Representatives was July 10, 2002. They alleged that unless the Legislature adopted a redistricting plan in time for it to be implemented before the July 10, 2002 deadline, “the interests and rights of Plaintiffs and all Oklahoma voters in the enforcement of applicable election laws will be further compromised, and their rights under federal and Oklahoma law to participate in the congressional election process in a timely and equal manner will be further violated.”
*1207¶ 3 As the basis of their request for relief, Appellees cited Art. 1, § 2 of the United States Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, § 2, which provides, in part, “the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states” and that “representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state_” Appel-lees requested that the court ensure enforcement of the laws and adopt and implement a congressional redistricting plan to be in place in sufficient time for the candidate qualification and election process to go forward according to the schedule established by Oklahoma law.
¶ 4 Appellants Stratton Taylor and Larry E. Adair filed a Motion to Stay Redistricting Proceedings, pending the earlier of (1) enactment by the Oklahoma Legislature of a new congressional redistricting plan; (2) the Legislature’s May 24, 2002 sirle die adjournment date; or (3) unanimous agreement among the parties that legislative enactment of a new redistricting plan was not reasonably anticipated to occur by the sine die adjournment date. Appellees objected to the' stay. The trial court overruled the motion to stay, and the case proceeded to trial.
¶ 5 Five redistricting plans were submitted to the court. They are identified as follows:
1. Governor’s, or Continuity, Plan, submitted by Appellees;
2. Senate Plan, submitted by Appellants;
3. Conference Committee Plan, submitted by Defendants and Defendants/Interve-nors;
4. House Plan #3, submitted by Defendants and Defendants/Intervenors; and
5. Edwards-Intervenors’ Plan
¶ 6 Following a five-day, non-jury trial, the court filed its judgment on May 31, 2002, establishing the Governor’s Plan as the Congressional redistrieting plan to be implemented for the State of Oklahoma. On June 5, 2002, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahpma entered an order in a pending case involving the same issues as those before us today. The federal court denied the motion of Defendants-Intervenors, Larry E. Adair and Stratton Taylor, to declare that the congressional redistricting plan implemented by the Oklahoma County District Court was void. The federal court’s order also stayed further proceedings there until the conclusion of the appeal process in this Court. Appellants filed their petition in error in this Court on June'7, 2002 and we granted Appellants’ motion to retain this appeal on June 12, 2002.
DISCUSSION
I.
THE OKLAHOMA COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS APPEAL
¶ 7 Appellants argue that because of this Court’s opinion in Jones v. Freeman, 1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564 and its progeny, we should hold that Oklahoma courts are without jurisdiction to decide this matter.2 Appellants also rely on Smith v. Clark, 189 F.Supp.2d 503 (D.C.S.D.Miss.2002), prob. juris, sub nom., Branch v. Smith, — U.S. — , 122 S.Ct. 2355, 153 L.Ed.2d 178 (2002), in support of the proposition that Art. 1, § 4 of the United States Constitution deprives state courts of jurisdiction to consider congressional redistricting disputes. For the reasons stated below, we disagree with Ap*1208pellants’ analysis and hold that the courts of the State of Oklahoma have jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.
¶ 8 If we fail to act here, the obvious effect will be that the three judge federal district court that has been empaneled to consider the problem created by the failure of the legislature to agree on redistricting legislation will set new congressional districts in our stead. The parties agree that this will likely be the case. We deem such an outcome unsatisfactory based on both state law and the teachings of the United States Supreme Court.
¶ 9 No specific Oklahoma constitutional or statutory provision provides a procedural blueprint for how the trial court was to handle the issues presented to it here. Nevertheless, we hold that the trial court correctly assumed both that it had jurisdiction and that a justiciable controversy was presented because of Okla. Const., Art. 2, § 6, which provides:
The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.
Given the unsatisfactory alternative to Oklahoma courts hearing and deciding this case, we have reexamined our jurisprudence addressing our jurisdiction in such matters and now hold that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and a justiciable case or controversy was presented. Further, after carefully reviewing the record, we find that the trial court’s judgment was not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and must, therefore, be affirmed.
¶ 10 In Smith v. Clark, which Appellants strongly rely on, a three judge federal district court in Mississippi enjoined the state courts from proceeding with carrying out the creation of new congressional districts. The court made clear that it was doing so for two reasons, neither of which is present here. First, it was unclear whether the state courts could have a redistricting plan in place in time for congressional elections because of the necessity of having any such plan pre-approved under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. No such problem exists here as the parties agree that no minority rights would be endangered if the court adopted either of the plans at issue, which the parties agree are the plan passed by the Oklahoma State Senate and the plan proposed by the Governor. Second, the Mississippi court made clear that there was at least a possibility that the Mississippi legislature might reapportion itself in time to provide for congressional elections. Here, by contrast, the legislature could not agree on a plan for two years and, in any case, has adjourned sine die, leaving no time for legislative action before the filing period for congressional offices begins in a matter of days. In any event, to the extent Smith v. Clark can be interpreted to stand for the proposition that state courts have no power to act in redistricting disputes because Art. 1, § 4, of the United States Constitution,3 prohibits state courts from acting, we decline to follow it. It is clear to us that Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) and Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075 1081, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993), both discussed at some length later in this section, stand for the proposition that Art. 1, § 4 does not prevent either federal or state courts from resolving redistricting disputes in a proper case.
¶ 11 In Jones v. Freeman, 1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564, we declined to reapportion the Oklahoma Legislature despite the fact that the legislature was extremely mal-appor-tioned. The Court said, “The inequality is so glaring that it repels any presumption that the legislation constituted a fair approximation of what was required by the fundamental law. It represents an instance where fair-minded men can entertain no doubt that the inequality of representation is grave, un*1209reasonable, and unnecessary.” 1943 OK 322 at ¶ 11,146 P.2d at 569 (quoting with approval, from Stiglitz v. Schardien, 239 Ky. 799, 40 S.W.2d 315, 321 (1931)). Nevertheless, this Court held in Jones that it lacked jurisdiction to “make the reapportionment ourselves, since that duty is legislative in nature....” To the extent that it is contrary to our holding today, Jones is expressly overruled.
¶ 12 In Wagoner County Election Board v. Plunkett, 1956 OK 329, 305 P.2d 525, we refused to assume jurisdiction under Okla. Const Art 2, § 6 to correct the result of an election that had turned on fraudulent absentee ballots because the election laws provided a recount procedure. The dissents in Plunk-ett, however, took the position that no legislation could be construed to • take away a court’s duty under Art. 2, § 6 “to correct wrongs when they occur regardless of the area of the life in which they may arise.” We agree with the Plunkett dissents and expressly overrule the Plunkett majority opinion on this score.
¶ 13 At the time Jones was decided, many state courts (and federal courts, too) took the position that reapportionment and congressional redistricting were strictly legislative “political matters,” beyond the power of the courts to revise or correct, regardless of the constitutional problems created by a legislature’s failure to act. In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), the court changed all this and made clear that reapportionment is not a strictly legislative enterprise. There, a three judge federal district court in Tennessee had held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that no justiciable claim had been stated in an action brought to require the reapportionment of the Tennessee legislature, which had failed to reapportion itself since 1901. The United States Supreme Court reversed the three judge district court’s dismissal and held that the plaintiffs, who had sued on behalf of all Tennessee voters, stated a cause of action based on the denial of equal protection of the law and directed the three judge district court to hear and decide the case.
¶ 14 In retrospect, the reason the court felt it necessary to so profoundly change the law in Baker v. Carr is clear. Many state legislatures, including the Oklahoma legislature, had routinely refused to reapportion themselves, and many state courts, including this Court, routinely ruled that they were powerless to do anything about it. Thus, something had to be done and was done in Baker v. Carr. The court in Baker v. Carr also recognized that courts have jurisdiction in congressional redistricting matters under Art. 1, § 4 of the federal constitution, pointing out, “The first cases involved the redistricting of states [under Art. 1, § 4].” 369 U.S. at 201, 82 S.Ct. at 701.
¶ 15 There is now no doubt that both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to craft both legislative reapportionment and congressional redistricting plans when, as here, the legislature has failed to act. In Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 1081, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993) the court stressed that both state legislatures and state courts are appropriate “agents of apportionment.” The court went on to explain that the responsibility was primarily one for the states when it said,
The primacy of the State in designing [Congressional] districts compels a federal court to defer [to state action in drafting a redistricting plan] where the State through its legislative or judicial branch, has begun that highly political task itself.
[Emphasis as in the original, bracketed material added for clarification.] 507 U.S. at 35 and 33,113 S.Ct. at 1081 and 1080.
¶ 16 The teaching of Emison and Baker is that citizens have a right to have their legislature properly apportioned and their congressional districts properly drawn and the responsibility for seeing that this right is enforced rests with the states, not the federal courts. The failure of a legislature to act is a violation of the state’s citizens’ constitutional rights under Art. 1, § 2 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such a failure is subject to redress by the state court if it will act and only by the federal court if it will not.
¶ 17 Given the profound changes brought about in the law by Baker, Emison, and other cases, this Court can no longer afford the luxury of declining to act in matters such *1210as the one before us today on the ground that such decisions are exclusively vested in the legislature. It is now clear that Art. 1, § 2 and the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution provide a right to citizens of this state to seek redress from the Oklahoma courts when the legislature fails to create new congressional districts consistent with constitutional requirements and that if this Court does not grant the relief sought, the federal courts will do it for us. For these reasons, we expressly overrule Jones v. Freeman, Wagoner County Election Board v. Plunkett, Brown v. State Election Board, Davis v. McCarty, and any other of our opinions to the extent that they might be construed to stand for the proposition that the courts of Oklahoma should decline to act when the legislature or another state entity fails to draw congressional districts that are consistent with the requirements of Art. 1, § 2 and the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States.
¶ 18 Appellants cite Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 149 L.Ed.2d 44 (2001), (quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995)); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000); Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932); and Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 36 S.Ct. 708, 60 L.Ed. 1172 (1916) in support of their claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction here. None of these opinions apply here. U.S. Term Limits involved the constitutionality of state enactments that purported to limit the terms of United States Congressmen and Senators and Bush v. Gore arose from the hotly contested Florida election recount of the ballots in the 2000 presidential election. Smiley and Hildebrant were decided in 1932 and 1916, respectively, long before either Baker v. Carr or Emison. We see nothing in any of these opinions that supports Appellants’ contention that state courts are constitutionally prohibited from granting relief for mal-formed congressional districts when their state legislatures have failed to do so.
¶ 19 Appellant also contends that the State Election Board is an indispensable party to this action, whose absence deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree. Appellees dismissed the State Election Board. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss in favor of the proceedings in federal court, after the deadline passed for re-joining the State Election Board as a party, raising its indispensable party argument for the first time. Appellants cannot now allege as error a situation they helped to create. See Aronson v. Aronson, 1970 OK 74, 468 P.2d 493. Moreover, the record reveals the Board is willing to implement whatever lawful redistricting plan is given to it for implementation. Appellants cannot show they were prejudiced by the Board’s absence as a party. Thus, we reject Appellants’ contention that the absence as a party of the State Election Board deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.
¶ 20 We hold that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the issues presented to it and that a justiciable controversy was presented, which the court had the obligation to resolve under Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 6. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in so holding.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 21 We stated the standard of review that applies in equitable actions in Merrill v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1992 OK 53 ¶ 7, 831 P.2d 634, 640-41:
Because when the trial court ... was sitting in equity, the standard of review applicable to the ruling is whether it is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. While in a chancery case an appellate court may weigh the evidence, it will neither disturb the trial court’s findings nor its decree unless the chancellor’s decision fails to pass muster under this well-known standard of review. Absent the standard’s breach, the appellate court must indulge in the presumption that the decree is correct.
[Emphasis as in the original, footnotes omitted.] In Robison v. Graham, 1990 OK 93 ¶ 30, 799 P.2d 610, 618 we vacated a Court of Appeals opinion and reinstated the trial *1211court’s judgment in an equitable action because “the trial court’s ruling was not against the clear weight of the evidence.” Thus, unless the trial court’s judgment here is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence we must indulge the presumption that the trial court was correct. For the reasons stated in Part III of this opinion, we hold that the trial court’s judgment was not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence and is entitled to the presumption that it was rightly decided.
III.
THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT CHOOSING THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN OVER THE SENATE PLAN
¶ 22 While the Legislature has the power and duty to draw the State’s congressional redistricting plan, the court’s role in this process is limited to determining whether there are constitutional or statutory defects. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725(1982). All parties have stipulated in the instant case that all the submitted plans satisfy the constitutional requirement of “one person, one vote” under Art. 1, § 2, U.S. Constitution, see Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997), and that there are no issues with regard to statutory violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Therefore, this Court must determine whether the district court’s judgment in its selection of the “Governor’s Plan,” also called the “Continuity Plan,” is a plan that continues the policies of Oklahoma as expressed in its previous redistricting plans. See White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973).
¶ 23 A court, as a general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying the existing plan. The starting point for analysis, therefore, is the 1991 Plan. See Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. at 79, 117 S.Ct. 1925; White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 795, 93 S.Ct. 2348. Widely recognized “neutral redistricting criteria” may be considered. See Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983); Johnson v. Miller, 922 F.Supp. 1556 (S.D.Ga.1995), affd sub nom Abrams v. Johnson, supra. Included among these criteria are: (1) preserving cores of existing districts, or communities of interest; (2) providing geographically compact districts; (3) minimizing splitting of political subdivisions; (4) maintaining historical placement of district lines; (5) fairness to voters; and (6) avoiding contests between incumbents running for reeleetion.
¶ 24 A major dispute between Appellants and Appellees is the treatment of incumbents in the two major proposed plans, the Senate Plan and the Governor’s Plan. Appellees contend that avoiding contests between incumbents is a legitimate objective of the redistricting process, citing Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983); Jordan v. Winter, 604 F.Supp. 807 (N.D.Miss.1984). It was held in Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740,103 S.Ct. 2653, that the legislative policy of avoiding contests between incumbents was included among legitimate objectives, which “on a proper showing could justify minor population deviations.” See also White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 797, 93 S.Ct. 2348, “The fact that district boundaries may have been drawn in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.” [Citations omitted.]
¶ 25 Appellants, however, cite cases holding that protection of incumbents should be subordinated after other criteria have been considered. See, e.g., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 769 F.2d 265, 268 (5th Cir.1985). They also contend error was committed because the trial court’s starting point in consideration of legislative criteria was protection of incumbents. Appellees respond that this contention is not supported by the record. The statement in the judgment with which Appellants take issue is the reference to principles to be applied, including, “what are called neutral principles, looking to the last clear expression of state policy in not only the current plan but in results of previous elections.” [Emphasis added,] This statement does not imply that the court’s major focus was election results because it also included consideration of the 1991 Legislative Plan and the neutral redistricting crite*1212ria. Moreover, evidence was presented to the trial court that the 1991 Plan drew districts in which incumbent representatives were not paired against each other. Compare this to the Senate Plan, in which Representative Istook is paired against Rep. Lucas and Rep. Watkins in District 5, an alleged attempt to remove Rep. Istook through political gerrymandering.
¶ 26 None of the proposed legislative plans is perfect. The task before this Court is to determine whether the trial court chose a plan which is constitutional, complies with the statutory requirements of the Voting Rights Act, and adheres to the legislative policy of the State under the previous plan. Despite the fact five plans were proposed, the parties have narrowed the focus to consideration of: (1) the Governor’s Plan, also termed the Continuity Plan, proposed by Ap-pellees, and (2) the Senate Plan, proposed by Appellants.
¶27 Evidence was presented that each plan has a single district that deviates from the ideal of 690,131 by only one person, and thus maintains population equality. Additionally, evidence was presented that both plans split only four counties, less than any other plan, including the 1991 Plan. The fourth split county in the Senate Plan arises for the sole purpose of moving 83 people from one district to another to achieve the federal constitutional requirement of equal population among the districts. Oklahoma County is divided into at least two districts under both plans. The Senate Plan splits 21 municipalities; the Governor’s Plan splits 15 municipalities. Tulsa is included under one congressional district under the Governor’s Plan, but the Senate Plan separates North Tulsa from the rest of the City. Tulsa’s May- or LaFortune testified it is not in Tulsa’s interest to split it into separate districts. Mayor Kirk Humphreys of Oklahoma City testified in favor of the Governor’s Plan because it retains core historical districts and does not put the metro areas in largely rural districts. Beverly Hodges, Oklahoma County Commissioner, testified that the Governor’s Plan unites Oklahoma City under a single leader in District 5. She also supports the Governor’s Plan, in that Oklahoma, Pottawatomie and Seminole Counties in District 5 have common economic interests and are contiguous. All of the proposed plans create two districts with the majority of the population from rural areas, and three districts, which are predominantly suburban and urban.
¶ 28 As to fairness to voters, evidence was received from the parties’ experts Gaddie and Copeland who agree that competitive districts are essential to a healthy representative democracy. “Competitive districts,” according to Copeland, are “responsive,” that is, they allow for the ability of voters to express changed opinions. When voter preferences change, it is more likely their representation will change. Gaddie and Copeland also agree that the Senate Plan is the most responsive plan, with two competitive seats. In the Governor’s Plan, there are four safe Republican seats and only one competitive seat, which is the district that currently elects a Democrat, according to Gaddie. Copeland opined that one seat in the Governor’s Plan is just barely competitive, and if an incumbent Republican runs for this seat, it will result in a 4 to 1 Republican congressional delegation. As stated above, however, under the 1991 Plan, the 2000 results favored Republicans 5 to 1.
¶ 29 Both proposed plans have merit, and both have faults. When all factors are considered, the record supports the trial court’s decision to choose the Governor’s Plan as more nearly continuing the legislative policies of the 1991 Plan than the Senate Plan. Thus, the trial court committed no error in doing so. Although Appellants urge us to substitute the Senate Plan for the Governor’s Plan, the standard of review applicable here prohibits such a result. As the trial court’s judgment is not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is entitled to a presumption of correctness and must be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
¶ 30 The trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on the issues in this case under Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 6. Our earlier opinions, such as Jones v. Freeman, 1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564; Wagoner County Election *1213Board v. Plunkett, 1956 OK 329, 305 P.2d 525; Brown v. State Election Board, 1962 OK 36, 369 P.2d 140; Davis v. McCarty, 1964 OK 5, 388 P.2d 480; and any other opinions reaching the same conclusions, are expressly overruled to the extent that they held the Oklahoma courts must decline to hear cases and grant remedies for violations of congressional redistricting disputes under Art. 1, § 2 and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This result is necessitated by Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) and Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075 1081, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993).
¶ 31 The absence of the State Election Board as a party to this suit did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction as Appellants failed to raise it until it was too late to re-join the election board as a party to the suit. In any event, it is undisputed that the Election Board will act in accordance with the orders of this Court.
¶ 32 The trial court’s judgment is entitled to a presumption of correctness unless it is “clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Merrill v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1992 OK 53 ¶ 7, 831 P.2d 634, 640-41. The record reflects that there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s decision to choose the Governor’s Plan over the Senate Plan. The trial court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HARGRAVE, C.J., HODGES (joins LAVENDER, J.), LAVENDER (by separate writing), KAUGER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ. — concur.
OPALA, J. (by separate writing) — concurs in part, dissents in part.

. Governor Frank Keating was sued in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma. The parties were later realigned, and Governor Keating became a plaintiff. Glo Henley, Kenneth Monroe and Thomas E. Prince were sued in their official capacities as Members of the State Election Board and were dismissed without prejudice.

. After its decision in Jones v. Freeman this court declined to act in other cases arising from election laws. See, Wagoner County Election Board v. Plunkett, 1956 OK 329, 305 P.2d 525 (held: Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction to grant relief despite clear showing of fraudulent absentee ballots in sufficient numbers to change the result of an election); Brown v. State Election Board, 1962 OK 36, 369 P.2d 140 (held: Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to reapportion legislature despite clear unconstitutionality of the current legislative apportionment laws); and Davis v. McCarty, 1964 OK 5, 388 P.2d 480 (held: reapportionment act would be modified with respect to state senate but not with respect to house, although federal constitutional "One person, one vote” requirement remained unsatisfied). Because of this Court’s failure to reapportion the state legislature in Davis v. McCarty, a three judge federal district court, relying on Baker v. Carr, did so in Reynolds v. State Election Board, 233 F.Supp. 323 (D.C.W.D Okla.1964).

. Article 1. § 4 of the federal constitution provides in material part as follows:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.