Court Opinion

ID: 9729549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:41:58.533881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.429431
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
{concurring, June 22, 1964). I concur in the result reached by the Court’s order entered today reserving the right, however, to set forth my reasons for this special concurrence in an opinion to be filed.
Souris, J.
{June 24, 1964). While concurring in the Court’s order of June 22, 1964, requiring the apportionment and districting of the State’s legislative power in accordance with a plan filed on May 11,1964, by legislative apportionment commissioners Austin and Kleiner,* I dissent from so much of that *258order which expressly or impliedly acknowledges the continuing validity of the first 6 sections of article 4 of the Constitution of 1963 except for section 1, the first paragraph of section 2, and that portion of section 3 which reads:
“The house of representatives shall consist of 110 members elected for two-year terms from single-member districts apportioned on a basis of population.”
Last April I concluded that the 80-20 formula contained in article 4 for the apportionment and districting of senate seats “expressly dilutes the importance of population in densely populated areas and enhances it in those areas sparsely populated” and that the formula devised for apportioning and districting house seats “likewise debases population as a determinative factor in apportionment of legislative power.” In re Apportionment of Legislature —1964, 372 Mich 461, 468. It was then my conclusion that:
“The blunt truth is that inequality is built into the legislative apportionment provisions of the Constitution of 1963 in flagrant disregard of the principles of equality required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 372 Mich at 468.
The United States supreme court now has reached the same conclusion. See opinion of reversal and remand to the United States district court for the Eastern district of Michigan in Marshall v. Hare (1964), 378 US 561 (84 S Ct 1912, 12 L ed 2d 1036) handed down June 22, 1964.
Having- concluded that the apportionment and districting provisions for both the senate and house *259of representatives were violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was my'conclusion (as it was United States District Judge Stephen J. Roth’s conclusion, in dissent, in Marshall v. Hare [1964], 227 F Supp 989, 1004, reversed and remanded, supra) that section 6 of article 4 which established the commission on legislative apportionment to “district and apportion the senate and house of representatives according to the provisions of this Constitution” likewise had to be held void. Section 6, in my view, was so dependent upon the continuing validity of the preceding sections by which the commission’s duties were specified and expressly limited, that it could not survive alone. I could not then, and cannot now, but conclude that except as indicated above, the first 6 sections of article 4, as they relate to the apportionment of legislative power, are inseparable and that the constitutional invalidity of i or more of said sections invalidates the remainder. Campau v. City of Detroit, 14 Mich 276, and People, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 197 Mich 532, 542 (LRA 1918A, 797). It. is incomprehensible to me that the people of this State in their adoption of the Constitution of 1963 would have intended to grant a commission composed of 8 members selected by the 2 major political parties in the State from 4 specifically designated areas of the State the power of apportionment and districting of the State’s legislature without the very specific and rigidly limiting directions unconstitutionally and ineffectually sought to be imposed upon the commission by the preceding sections of article 4.
It was my belief in April, as it is now, that absent valid constitutional delegation of legislative apportionment and districting duties the legislature has the inherent power, as said by Mr. Chief Justice Warren for the supreme court in Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor *260(1964), 377 US 656, 675, 676 (84 S Ct 1442, 12 L ed 2d 595) (32 LW 4573, 4578), “to enact at least temporary reapportionment legislation pending adoption of State constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment which comport with Federal constitutional requirements.”
Were there time yet remaining, as there was in April, I would defer to the legislature in apportioning and districting the State’s legislative power for the forthcoming year. However, now too little time remains for such nice regard for the fact that “legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.” Reynolds v. Sims (1964), 377 US 533, 586 (84 S Ct 1362, 12 L ed 2d 506) (32 LW 4535, 4550). Certainly, in the interest of avoiding disruption of the election process, and indeed of the legislative process itself, considering our previous declarations of invalidity of our prior Constitution’s apportionment provisions (the 1952 amendments to sections 2 and 4 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1908) pursuant to which the current legislature was elected (see Scholle v. Secretary of State, 367 Mich 176, 180, 232, certiorari denied, sub nom, Beadle v. Scholle, June 22, 1964, by the United States supreme court, 377 US 990 [84 S Ct 1901, 12 L ed 2d 1043] [32 LW 3440]), it is our judicial responsibility to order now, in time for the forthcoming primary and general election,* a provisional reapportionment plan for this year’s legislative elections, leaving for the legislature so reapportioned and elected or to the people themselves by constitutional initiative or referendum processes the task of fashioning for the future a periodic re*261apportionment plan in conformance with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed by the United States supreme court. Such indeed was the procedure approved by the United States supreme court in Reynolds v. Sims, supra, and impliedly approved in WMCA, Inc., v. Lomenzo, Secretary of State (1964), 377 US 633 (84 S Ct 1418, 12 L ed 2d 568) (32 LW 4551); Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (1964), 377 US 713 (84 S Ct 1472, 12 L ed 2d 632) (32 LW 4557); Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor, supra; Davis v. Mann (1964), 377 US 678 (84 S Ct 1453, 12 L ed 2d 609) (32 LW 4579); and Roman v. Sincock (1964), 377 US 695 (84 S Ct 1462, 12 L ed 2d 620) (32 LW 4583).
Fortunately, we in Michigan have the benefit of the Austin-Kleiner plan for prompt adoption by this Court in the exercise of its general equity powers. It is significant to note at this point that no objection has yet been made to the plan’s provisions except that its design is a political gerrymander and that it accomplishes greater population equality than some regard is required by the United States supreme court’s recent decisions applying the Fourteenth Amendment’s equality clause to legislative apportionment matters. The claim of political gerrymander significantly is unsupported by even the barest allegations of fact. The other claim, that we are not compelled to render equality so equally, does not persuade me that something less merits our choice.
I have joined in the Court’s order requiring the forthcoming legislative elections to be conducted in districts set forth in the alternate Austin-Kleiner plan and the State’s legislative power to be apportioned as provided therein, not pursuant to any of the provisions of section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution of 1963, but rather in exercise of this *262Court’s general equitable power to provide by judicial decree a provisional legislative reapportionment pending valid legislative or constitutional enactments providing for periodic reapportionment. Furthermore, I reaffirm my earlier finding that, except as stated in the first paragraph of this opinion, the first 6 sections of article 4 of the Constitution of 1963 are void.

 Following release on April 10, 1964, of the opinions in In re Apportionment of Legislature — 1964, 372 Mich 461, Commissioners Austin and Kleiner, on May 11, 1964, petitioned the Court for leave to file an alternate districting and apportionment plan, attached to *258the petition, whieli eliminated those features of previously filed_ plans found constitutionally objectionable in 2 of the Court’s April opinions. On May 13th, this Court granted their petition to file.the alternate plan. It is that alternate plan which, the Court on June 22d designated for adoption by the legislative apportionment commission.

 As noted in the Court’s opinion of June 22d, the secretary of State for the State of Michigan and chief election official of the State, has certified to this Court that ample time exists for holding orderly primary and general elections for legislative offices provided an apportionment and districting plan is adopted by June 25, 1964.