Cahill v. Leopold

Decision Date15 February 1954
Citation141 Conn. 1,103 A.2d 818
PartiesCAHILL et al. v. LEOPOLD, Secretary of State. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

William S. Gordon, Jr., Hartford, with whom were William P. Aspell, Hartford, and, on the brief, George D. Braden, Plainville, Alexander A. Goldfarb, James H. Kinsella, Frederick D. Neusner and Leo Parskey, Hartford, for plaintiffs.

William L. Beers, Atty. Gen., with whom was Mansfield D. Sprague, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, QUINLAN and WYNNE, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

At its regular session in 1953 the General Assembly enacted Public Act No. 32, purporting to redistrict the senatorial districts of the state. General Statutes, Cum.Sup. 1953, §§ 399c. 400c. The ultimate question in this litigation is whether that enactment is violative of the thirty-first amendment to the state constitution. The amendment, in the form in which it was adopted in 1901 and in which it still remains, is printed in full in the footnote. 2 The case is here upon a reservation, and the facrt stipulated by the parties may be summarized as follows: The General Assembly of 1951 convened on January 3 of that year. During the session, it took no action aimed at altering the state senatorial districts. No redistricting bill was introduced in either house. At that time according to the figures of the 1950 census, the population of the thirty-six senatorial districts varied from 24,309 in the thirty-first to 122,931 in the fifth. As set up in the 1953 act, the population of the districts ranges from 40,835 in the thirty-first to 73,726 in the sixth.

The seventeenth decennial census of the United States was taken as of April 1, 1950. The enumeration started on April 2, and, so far as Connecticut was concerned, was finished by May 1 of that year. It was made by enumerators, to each of whom had been assigned a small district. In addition to making a personal canvass of every household, the enumerators visited hotels and other transient accommodations within their respective districts on April 11 and prepared individual census reports for each person found in the districts on that day whose usual residence was elsewhere. Upon completing their work, the enumerators delivered their returns to field offices, where tabulations were carried out. This field count was completed by the middle of June, 1950, and shortly thereafter the figures for all Connecticut towns were released to and published by the press. Later on, the figures for all cities by wards and voting districts were similarly released and published.

About June 25, 1950, the returns for the entire state were shipped to the census office in Philadelphia. These were accompanied by the individual reports of transients found in the state on April 11, 1950. By a method explained in the footnote, 3 tabulation of the data appearing on the returns and reports was commenced in Philadelphia in July. The results were recorded on so-called M.C.D. (minor civil division) sheets. 4 As a consequence of this tabulation, the determination and the recording of the final figures for all Connecticut towns and for wards and voting districts in the cities were completed prior to October 30, 1950.

On the date just mentioned, the director of the census sent to the secretary of commerce a statement showing the total population of the District of Columbia and of each state in the union. On November 2, this information was transmitted to the president and released to the press by the secretary of commerce with the comment: 'I am particularly pleased with the speed and accuracy with which the enumeration and final count have been completed. The Bureau finished the job about a month earlier than in 1940.'

Section 18 of the current census act authorizes the director of the census to furnish copies of so much of the population returns as may be requested by state or local officials as well as by private individuals. 46 Stat. 25, 13 U.S.C. § 218 [13 U.S.C.A. § 218]. By virtue of this provision, certified copies of the final figures of the 1950 census, broken down to Connecticut towns, wards and voting districts, were obtainable, at a cost of $20, any time after October 30, 1950, by Connecticut state officials and by the 1951 General Assembly when it convened.

The final population figures of Connecticut towns, which had been computed and recorded on the M.C.D. sheets prior to October 30, 1950, were first released to the press on August 12, 1951. This release, which did not cover the figures for city wards and voting districts, included an analysis of the Connecticut population under the heading of urban and rural classifications. On November 28, 1951, the bureau of the census published a pamphlet as a preprint of chapter 7 of an eventually to-be-compiled volume 1 of census statistics. Among other data incorporated in the preprint were the final population figures for counties, towns and wards, where a city was divided into wards.

The original constitutional provision for senatorial districting was embodied in the second amendment, 5 adopted in 1828. This amendment was in subtantially the same form as the thirty-first, save that it authorized fewer districts. During 1829, the state was divided by the General Assembly into senatorial districts. From 1831 until 1951, with the exception of the redistricting in 1903 required by the express terms of the thirty-first amendment, every act changing the territorial limits of a senatorial district has been enacted in the year immediately following the year of the decennial census, that is, in 1831, 1841, 1881, 1921 and 1941. During the same period, each General Assembly held in the first year of a decennium has considered redistricting legislation except the Assemblies of 1891 and 1951. In each of the years in which such legislation was considered, there were available to the General Assembly only the preliminary figures issued by the official charged with taking the census. In 1911 Governor Simeon E. Baldwin procured the final census figures prior to publication and submitted them to the General Assembly. Several of the governors holding office in the first year of a decennium have called the attention of the General Assembly to the fact that it was proper to redistrict the state and have observed that if it were not done then, it could not be done for another ten years.

From 1903 to 1953, the senatorial districts have been altered twice. In 1921 changes were made in the districts in the city of New Haven, and in 1941 the town of Greenwich was constituted an additional district. Certain other stipulated facts need not be recited at this point but will subsequently be mentioned in discussing the law.

The nine specific questions 6 propounded on this reservation can be resolved, as the parties agree, into the following three: (1) Was the seventeenth census of the United States completed, within the meaning of the thirty-first amendment to the state constitution, before the opening of the regular session of the General Assembly in January, 1951? (2) If it was, did the thirty-first amendment preclude the General Assembly of 1953 from enacting redistricting legislation? (3) If the General Assembly of 1953 did in fact have the power to redistrict, did the redistricting act of 1953 violate the constitutional requirement that each senatorial district shall be composed of contiguous territory?

We begin a discussion of the first of these three questions by observing that, when the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is attacked, we must make every reasonable intendment in favor of its validity. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Collins, 138 Conn. 582, 586, 87 A.2d 139; Legat v. Adorno, 138 Conn. 134, 145, 83 A.2d 185. On the other hand, we must not be blind to the obvious or permit ourselves to be lulled into error by the soothing influence of a mere presumption. If the invalidity of the enactment is evident beyond a reasonable doubt, our duty, delicate as the task may be, is to nullify the statute. Gionfriddo v. Town of Windsor, 137 Conn. 701, 705, 81 A.2d 266; Beach v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 344, 349, 82 A. 1030.

The thirty-first amendment, § 2, provides that the senatorial district, after they have once been established, 'shall not be altered * * * except at a session of the general assembly next after the completion of a census of the United States'. The initial inquiry which this language naturally suggests is: What is meant by the phrase 'the completion of a census'? A census is the official enumeration of the population. Webster's New International Dictionary (2d Ed.); City of Compton v. Adams, 33 Cal.2d 596, 597, 203 P.2d 745; City of Huntington v. Cast, 149 Ind. 255, 258, 48 N.E. 1025. In ordinary parlance, the completion of a census refers to the time when an official counting of the people has been finished. But, as used in the thirty-first amendment, the phrase means something more than that. The 'census' mentioned in the amendment must of necessity be one showing the figures which are essential for intelligent action on the part of the General Assembly. The mere enumeration of the entire state, without more, is of no help in the enactment of redistricting legislation. The Assembly needs other data if, as provided, it is to make the senatorial districts as nearly equal in population as possible, under the limitation prescribed in the amendment. A census, then, within the thirty-first amendment, is one showing the population figures broken down into counties, towns and wards; and the census is completed only when those figures have been released to the public by an official authorized by law to make such publication or when those figures are available for the use of the General Assembly.

This standard for determining when a census has been completed accords with common sense and fulfils the purpose for which the phrase under discussion was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Gethers
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1985
    ...to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 19, 103 A.2d 818 [1954]; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 125. Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect mus......
  • Snyder v. Town of Newtown
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1960
    ...adoption and consistently and repeatedly followed by the legislature for over a century thereafter is most persuasive. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 14, 103 A.2d 818; Board of Water Commissioners of City of Hartford v. Curtis, 87 Conn. 506, 511, 89 A. 189. The continued legislative exempt......
  • Lamson v. Secretary of Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1960
    ...oftener * * *' indicate a clear intention * * * that * * * acts are to be passed at definitely designated sessions * * *'). In Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 3-4 (note), 24, 103 A.2d 818, 821, in the course of holding that only the specified session has the power ('after which said distric......
  • Butterworth v. Dempsey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 26, 1964
    ...only that session of the General Assembly next after completion of the United States census to redistrict the Senate. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 103 A.2d 818 (1954). Measured by any of the recognized standards, the malapportionment of the Senate is clearly demonstrated.3 The disparity ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Connecticut's Free Speech Clauses: a Framework and an Agenda
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 65, 1990
    • Invalid date
    ...176, 561 A.2d 1378 (1989), cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 563 (1989). 13 12 Conn. at 178, 561 A.2d at 1380 n. 1. 14 See, e.g., Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 21, 103 A.2d 818, 828 (1954): "Effect must be given to every part and each word in our constitution, unless there is some clear reason...fo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT