Court Opinion

ID: 9574407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:41.823606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:30.941796
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree with much said in the majority opinion, I am puzzled and uncomfortable with the ultimate result and the purpose of the remand. As I view the majority opinion, it is ordered that upon remand the defendants may submit evidence as to the unconstitutionality of H.B. 830. That question, it seems to me, involves only our constitutional prohibition against splitting counties, Idaho Const., art. 3, § 5, and clearly H.B. 830 splits counties. The larger, and in my mind the only, question is whether the Reynolds v. Symms progeny of cases invalidates art. 3, § 5 forbidding the splitting of counties. While essentially a question of law, it also involves the determination of factual matters. Perhaps unfortunately but nevertheless clearly, if the provision of Idaho’s Constitution conflicts with the United States Constitution, the Idaho constitutional provision must fall. There is no evidence that H.B. 830 fails to comport with the United States constitutional mandate of one-man one-vote. Just as clearly, H.B. 830 conflicts with the Idaho Constitution. The ultimate question then becomes, can Idaho be legislatively reapportioned in such manner as to comport with both the Idaho and United States Constitutions? If Idaho can be so reapportioned as to comport with both constitutions, then H.B. 830 must fail. If Idaho cannot be so reapportioned as to comport with both constitutions, then the United States Constitution controls, art. 3, § 5 of our constitution must fall and H.B. 830 survives. This I deem to be the only question for resolution at the remand stage.
If, on the basis of a full evidentiary hearing on that question, the trial court determines that H.B. 830 must fail, then it would seem appropriate (hopefully following review by this Court) that the legislature be ordered to reapportion. If the legislature *863failed to so reapportion, then the judiciary might be required to become involved in the actual reapportionment process. I believe, however, that reapportionment by the judiciary should be only a last resort. The United States Supreme Court has continually recognized the need for judicial restraint and respect for the legislature as a coordinate branch of government. Particularly do I believe judicial restraint should be exercised in this delicate area of courts forcing a legislature to substantially reorganize itself and legislate some of its membership out of existence. Our wisdom, if any we have, is different from that of the legislature in the numbers necessary to reach consensus and also, in the factors to be considered. Those very factors enunciated by the district judge which make Idaho unique might be better weighed by a large member body with representation from all the areas of those differences rather than by a single district judge or even by the membership of this Court.
Hopefully, if necessary, the legislature will so act. With the cause pending on appeal in this Court, there has been no real need nor impetus for legislative action. I would not rush to intrude the judiciary into what I conceive to be a clear legislative process.