State ex rel. Aamoth v. Sathre
| Decision Date | 08 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 7958,7958 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota ex rel. Gordon S. AAMOTH, Petitioner, v. P. O. SATHRE, Leslie R. Burgun, Ben Meier, Ben Wolf, and Arthur Link, Respondents. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, acting as an apportionment board under the provisions of Section 35 of the North Dakota Constitution, as amended June 28, 1960, act as a part of the legislative branch of the State government, coordinate with and equal to the judicial branch. In the exercise of its constitutional powers, this apportionment board is not subject to supervision, control, or interference by the courts.
2. Until the issuance of a proclamation as provided for in Section 35 of the North Dakota Constitution, the work of the apportionment board, provided for in that section, would be subject to change and amendment.
3. Until the action of the apportionment board has been made final by the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Justice, as required by Section 35 of the Constitution, any decision of this court on the constitutionality of the proposed acts of the apportionment board would be purely advisory.
4. This court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may not give advisory opinions to the Legislature or determine the constitutionality of proposed acts of the Legislature or of legislative bodies. Neither may this court enjoin, nor direct or command by writ of mandamus or other process, what legislative bodies may or may not do within the scope of their constitutional mandates.
Conmy, Conmy & Feste, Fargo, for petitioner.
William R. Pearce, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Paul M. Sand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
The petitioner, a citizen and taxpayer of the State of North Dakota and a resident of the city of Fargo in Cass County, brings this action to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to enjoin the Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court from issuing a proclamation under Section 35 of the North Dakota Constitution, as amended.
The petition shows that the people of this State, at the primary election held on June 28, 1960, adopted an amendment to the North Dakota Constitution which, among other things, amended Section 35 so that it now reads:
The petition of the relator shows that the Thirty-seventh Session of the Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota failed to apportion the membership of the House of Representatives of the Legislative Assembly, and that it therefore became the duty of the above-named respondents, as the persons designated in the constitutional amendment, to proceed to make such apportionment.
The petition further sets forth that the respondents attempted to make such apportionment by adopting, on May 8, 1961, by majority vote, the so-called 'Burgum plan,' the petition alleging that, on the said 8th day of May 1961, the following action was taken by the apportionment group:
'Wolf moved to accept the Burgum plan, seconded by Link and the vote was 4 to 1 for adoption.'
The petition then alleges that such plan would apportion representation in the House of Representatives of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly in an arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional manner and in excess of the jurisdiction of the apportionment group, and not according to population.
The petition prays that the court take original jurisdiction of the matter; that it restrain and enjoin the Honorable P. O. Sathre, Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, from issuing a proclamation as provided for in the constitutional amendment above referred to; and that a writ of mandamus issue directing the respondents to make an apportionment of the balance of the House of Representatives according to the population of the several senatorial districts of the State, as required by said Section 35 of the North Dakota Constitution, as amended.
The respondents, by their return, show that the ninety-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Meier 8212 1406
...and that, until the proclamation was issued, the group's action was not subject to challenge in the courts. State ex rel. Aamoth v. Sathre, 110 N.W.2d 228 (ND 1961). B. Citizens of North Dakota then sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.......
-
State Ex Rel. Ismael R. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald
...See Murphy v. Collins, 20 Ill.App.3d 181, 312 N.E.2d 772 (1974); Vinson v. Chappell, 3 N.C.App. 348, 164 S.E.2d 631 (1968); State v. Sathre, 110 N.W.2d 228 (N.D.1961); Collins v. Horten, 111 So.2d 746 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959); Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Randall, 209 Md. ......
-
Bismarck Public School Dist. No. 1 v. State By and Through North Dakota Legislative Assembly
...branches of government, it is not the usual function of the judiciary to supervise the legislative process in that manner. State v. Sathre, 110 N.W.2d 228 (N.D.1961). The procedure for a declaratory judgment provides an adequate alternative to the court's retention of jurisdiction. Section ......
-
State v. Fitzgerald
...See Murphy v. Collins, 312 N.E.2d 772 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974); Vinson v. Chappell, 164 S.E.2d 631 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968); State v. Sathre, 110 N.W.2d 228 (N.D. 1961); Collins v. Horten, 111 So.2d 746 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959); Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Randall, 120 A.2d 1......