Harris v. Shanahan
| Decision Date | 30 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43289,43289 |
| Citation | 192 Kan. 629,390 P.2d 772 |
| Parties | J. P. HARRIS et al., Appellees, v. Paul R. SHANAHAN, as Secretary of State, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Senate Bill No. 2 and House Bill No. 2 of the 1964 special session apportioning the state into 40 senatorial districts of approximately equal population, and apportioning one member of the House of Representatives to each of the 105 organized counties, and then apportioning the 20 'extra' seats not allocated on a geographical basis, to counties entitled to them by virtue of population in accordance with the method of equal proportions, are examined, and, under the facts and circumstances set forth in the opinion and the authorities cited and discussed, it is held: That both of said acts, being in compliance with Article 2, Section 2, and Article 10, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Kansas, are valid and constitutional.
2. The construction of a statute is a judicial function, and established rules relating thereto are stated and applied.
3. House Bill No. 2 of the 1964 special session is further examined, and, considering applicable principles of statutory construction; the governor's written message when he approved the bill; the report of the research department of the legislative council; the population statistics of various wards and precincts of Johnson County, and the nature of the boundaries and the location of the wards and precincts therein, it is held: The legislature intended that precinct 4 of ward 2 in the city of Prairie Village constitute a part of representative district 13 in Johnson County and to form no part of representative district 11.
William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Topeka, argued the cause, and Park McGee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, was with him on the briefs for appellants.
William Y. Chalfant, Hutchinson, argued the cause for appellees.
The nature, facts and history of this action are set forth in our earlier opinions of January 31, 1963 (Harris v. Shanahan, 191 Kan. 1, 378 P.2d 157), and December 5, 1963 (Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 387 P.2d 771), the latter having declared both the 1963 apportionment of the Senate, enacted by Senate Bill 440 (Laws 1963, Ch. 13), and the 1961 apportionment of the House of Representatives (G.S.1961 Supp. 4-103) to be unconstitutional and void. Having thus ruled, we said:
(192 Kan. l. c. 215, 387 P.2d 796.)
Thereafter, and on February 10, 1964, the governor issued his proclamation calling the legislature into special session on February 17, 1964, to enact such apportionment statutes as would comply with the constitutional mandate pertaining thereto. On the date appointed, the legislature duly convened in special session and subsequently and on February 21, 1964, enacted Senate Bill No. 2, which apportioned the state into 40 senatorial districts, and House Bill No. 2, which apportioned the state into 125 representative districts. Those bills were duly signed by the governor on February 24, 1964, and thereafter published in the official state paper, thereby making the acts effective.
On February 28, 1964, counsel for both parties filed a joint motion requesting this court to consider the 1964 apportionment acts and judicially approve those measures as being in compliance with Article 2, Section 2, and Article 10, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Kansas; to affirm the judgment of the court below, and to declare that the equitable relief granted therein, as well as the manner of holding future elections, had died of its own terms. Attached to the joint motion were copies of both apportionment acts and maps of the state containing population statistics based on the 1963 state census and showing the respective senatorial districts and districts of the House of Representatives created thereby and the population of all such districts, as well as each district number. The joint motion alleged that, among other things, Senate Bill No. 2 repealed G.S.1949, 4-102, and Chapter 13, Laws of 1963, and that House Bill No. 2 repealed G.S.1961 Supp., 4-103.
Subsequently, and on March 4, 1964, counsel filed a supplemental joint motion asking this court to take judicial notice of and consider documents of the Legislative Council Research Department attached thereto which showed, among other things, the area and population statistics of the five representative districts apportioned to Johnson County by House Bill No. 2 and the population of each ward and precinct of the incorporated cities of Johnson County, based on the 1963 census which was used by that department and the House Committee on Legislative Apportionment in determining the apportionment of those five representative districts, and upon which population statistics and ward and precinct areas the five representative districts were finally determined and established.
Upon the filing of the joint motion, this court ordered counsel to file briefs and present oral argument thereon. The motion was heard on its merits on March 6, 1964, and we shall consider each act to determine its validity.
The joint motion alleged,
'That in the opinion of the movants, Senate Bill No. 2 operates to apportion the Kansas Senate in accordance with the requirements of the Kansas Constitution.'
It may be said that the apportionment of senatorial districts by Senate Bill No. 2 is essentially the same as that attempted by the void 1963 act (Laws 1963, Ch. 13), with minor adjustments made for subsequent population changes revealed by the 1963 state census. Based upon the 1963 state census population of 2,172,296, an averagesized senatorial district should now contain 54,307 people. As shown by the map of Kansas attached to the joint motion and the geographical boundaries and population statistics for each senatorial district shown thereon, Senate Bill No. 2 apportioned the state into 40 districts of approximately equal population, none of which varied more than approximately 14 percent from the average population figure of 54,307. The smallest district created by the new act contains 47,114 persons, while the largest has 61,920, and all but nine districts vary less than 10 percent above or below the average district figure. Because of the 1963 urban and rural population patterns within the larger populated counties, it is difficult for the legislature to establish senatorial districts which more nearly approximate the ideal or average district figure than that contained in the new act. As we previously stated, in the apportionment of the state into senatorial districts, the legislature is not confined to county boundary lines, but the resulting districts should, where possible, be compact and contain a population and area as similar as may be in its economic, political, and cultural interests, all as determined by the legislature in its discretion, not acting arbitrarily or capriciously. (Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 205, 387 P.2d 771.) Accordingly, we hold that Senate Bill No. 2 of the 1964 special session represents a valid exercise of legislative power, and find that the act and the apportionment of senatorial districts therein contained constitute as close an approximation to exactness as possible as required by Article 10, Section 2 of the Kansas Constitution, and that the apportionment accomplished thereby is valid and constitutional.
With respect to House Bill No. 2, the joint motion alleged,
'That in the opinion of the movants, the apportionment plan contained in House Bill No. 2 is in compliance with the Kansas Constitution.'
As determined in Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 204, 205, 209, 212, 213, Syl. p14, 387 P.2d 771, it was recognized by those who framed the Constitution that the districts of the House of Representatives were to be apportioned to the several counties, that is, each organized county was to have at least one representative and seats not allocated on a geographical basis were to be apportioned to counties properly entitled to them by virtue of population, and each county entitled to more than one such seat was to be divided into as many districts equal or substantially equal in population as it had representatives. In no case was a representative district to include territory in more than one county.
G.S.1949, 4-101 fixes the size of the House of Representatives ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Anderson
...(G.S.1961 Supp., 4-103) to be unconstitutional and void. They were likewise construed and applied in Harris v. Shanahan, (March 30, 1964), 192 Kan. 629, 390 P.2d 772, which judicially approved Senate Bill No. 2 and House Bill No. 2 of the 1964 Special Session of the legislature. (Chs. 1 and......
-
Stephens v. Van Arsdale
...the specific words control over general provisions in statutes unless contrary legislative intent clearly appears. Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 629, 390 P.2d 772 (1964). The language used indicates a legislative intent that confidential items should be limited to specific documents concerne......
-
Moore v. Shanahan
...the courts to protect such constitutional right. * * *' (l. c. 207, 387 P.2d 791.) The holding was cited and approved in Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 629, 390 P.2d 772, and in Harris v. Anderson, 194 Kan. 302, 400 P.2d 25, cert. den. 382 U.S. 894, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 150. See, also, Co......
-
Johnson's Estate, In re
...by the constitution. A statute should, if reasonably possible, be so construed as to uphold its constitutionality. (Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 629, 390 P.2d 772.) Although the statute makes no exception to annual crops on the homestead at the date of death, a cursory examination of other ......