Jones v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 12 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 31322 |
| Parties | JONES v. FREEMAN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. STATES--Legislative apportionment -- Ratio for members of House of Representatives.
In order to determine the ratio for members of the House of Representatives the whole population of the state is to be divided by the figure 100. Const. art. 5, sec. 10 (c).
2. SAME--Status of county having population of less than half a ratio.
No county having a population of less than half a ratio is entitled to be a separate representative district, but must be attached to a county adjoining it and become a part of such representative district. Const. art. 5, sec. 10 (g).
3. SAME--County having as much as half a ratio entitled to one representative.
Each county having as much as half a ratio is entitled to one representative. Const. art. 5, sec. 10 (d).
4. SAME--Maximum of seven representatives for county.
No county shall ever take part in the election of more than seven representatives. Const. art. 5, sec. 10 (d).
5. SAME--Requirements as to senatorial districts.
In districting the state for senatorial purposes, the state must be divided into 44 senatorial districts, except that when a county is entitled to more than two senators the number of senators may be increased above 44 by such additional number. But one senator may be elected from any senatorial district, created by a senatorial apportionment act, except where a county is entitled to three or more senators, in which event the additional senators may be elected from separate districts, from other districts, or at large by the voters of the county as the Legislature may direct, so long as substantial equality prevails. All senatorial districts shall consist of contiguous territory, shall be in as compact form as, practicable, and shall contain as near as may be an equal number of inhabitants, subject to the qualification that no county shall be divided except where it is entitled to two or more Senators, and no town, and no ward in a city when constituting only one voting precinct, shall be divided in the formation of a senatorial district. Const. art. 5, secs. 9 (a), (b).
6. SAME -- Constitutional requirement that legislative acts apportion representation in two houses on basis of substantial equality.
Except as otherwise provided therein, the Constitution makes it the duty of the Legislature, in enacting legislative apportionment acts, to apportion representation in the two houses of the Legislature on the basis of substantial equality.
7. SAME--CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Constitutional provisions generally mandatory.
Constitutional provisions are mandatory unless it appears from the express terms thereof, or by necessary implication from the language used, that they are intended to be directory only.
8. SAME--Provisions for enacting legislative apportionment acts mandatory.
The provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution for enacting legislative apportionment acts are mandatory.
9. SAME--Mandatory duty of Legislature to enact legislative apportionment acts at first session after each federal decennial census is continuing duty upon succeeding sessions until valid acts are passed.
It is the mandatory duty of the Legislature to district the state for senatorial purposes and to apportion the members of the House of Representatives among the counties of the state at the first session of the Legislature after each decennial federal census, but if it fails to do so at said session, the duty to do so at the succeeding session or sessions continues until valid apportionment acts are passed. Const. art. 5, secs. 9 (a), 10 (b).
10. COURTS -- Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court of action to test constitutionality of legislative apportionment acts.
Under article 7, sec. 2, of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of an action to test the constitutionality of legislative apportionment acts and may enforce its judgment by any of the appropriate writs therein mentioned, and such jurisdiction is not affected by the provisions of article 5, sec. 10 (j), of the Constitution.
11. SAME--Right of any citizen of state to maintain original action in Supreme Court.
Any citizen of the state is entitled to maintain an original action in the Supreme Court, under authority of article 7, sec. 2, of the Constitution, to test the constitutionality of legislative apportionment acts and to enforce the judgment in such case by the proper writ.
12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Supreme Court may not make legislative apportionment.
The duty to provide for legislative apportionment is legislative in nature, and the Supreme Court may not, in an original action to test the constitutionality of any such apportionment act, make the apportionment.
13. SAME--Supreme Court may not compel Legislature to perform its mandatory duty.
The Supreme Court may not compel the Legislature to perform its mandatory duty to pass proper and timely legislative apportionment acts.
14. SAME--Supreme Court may not try title to legislative offices or enjoin payment of salaries.
Each House of the Legislature is the sole judge of the election and qualifications of its own members, and the Supreme Court may not try title to legislative offices or enjoin the payment of legislative salaries.
15. SAME--MANDAMUS -- Supreme Court will in its discretion refuse to issue writ of mandamus to require elections to be held under apportionment made by Constitution.
The Supreme Court will, in its discretion, refuse to issue a writ of mandamus to require elections to be held under the apportionment made by the Constitution, where to do so would result in greater inequality of representation than that provided by other laws, and where two counties, created since the adoption of the Constitution, would be wholly without representation.
Petition to review apportionment by the Legislature by Jenkin Lloyd Jones and Jenkin Lloyd Jones, as relator, against Harold Freeman, as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Oklahoma, A. S. J. Shaw, as State Treasurer of Oklahoma, C. C. Childers, as State Auditor of Oklahoma, Wm. L. Cheatham, as Chairman of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, Fred L. Coogan, as Member of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, and J. Wm. Cordell, as Secretary of the State Election Board of Oklahoma. Application for relief denied.
Samuel A. Boorstin, of Tulsa, for petitioner.
Mac Q. Williamson; Atty. Gen., and Randell S. Cobb, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents Shaw, Childers, Cheatham, Coogan, and Cordell in their official capacities.
Streeter Speakman, of Sapulpa, John Steele Batson, of Marietta, Tom Kight, of Claremore, and Purman Wilson, of Purcell, for respondent Harold Freeman.
¶1 This is an original action brought by petitioner, Jenkin Lloyd Jones, to test the validity of the various legislative apportionment acts enacted since the adoption of the Constitution. Petitioner alleges all of such acts to be contrary to express constitutional provisions, and seeks (unless a valid law be enacted meanwhile) to require the next election to be held under the apportionment as made by the Constitution, as well as to restrain the payment of compensation to legislators already elected under the allegedly invalid laws.
¶2 It has been stipulated that petitioner is an elector and taxpayer of Tulsa county, and that he has voted in elections held under the challenged statutes. We will take judicial notice of the population of the counties of the state as shown by each decennial federal census. 18 Am. Jur. 200.
¶3 By article 5, sec. 11, of the Constitution the state was divided into 33 senatorial districts, 22 of them being given one Senator each and 11 being given two Senators each. By article 5, secs. 12-16 of the Constitution, 109 representatives were apportioned among the 75 counties created by the Constitution, each county being given at least one representative. (Two counties, Harmon and Cotton, have been created since the Constitution was adopted.) However, the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative apportionment contained therein should serve only until 1911. They made it the duty of the Legislature at that time to enact a new apportionment law, based upon the population as ascertained by the federal census of 1910, or in such other manner as the Legislature might direct (no other method of ascertaining population has been provided), and they also made it the duty of future Legislatures to enact apportionment laws after the taking of each succeeding decennial federal census. Const. art. 5, secs. 9, 10, and 11. In passing apportionment acts the principle of equality is, as a general rule, enjoined upon the Legislature, so that each voter of the state will have approximately the same power and influence in electing members of the two houses of the Legislature, and in shaping legislation, as every other voter. Thus article 5, sec. 9 (a), of the Constitution provides that at the time of each senatorial apportionment after the year 1910, the state shall be divided into 44 senatorial districts, each of which shall elect one Senator and shall "contain as near as may be an equal number of inhabitants." It further provides that the Senate shall always be composed of 44 Senators, except that such members may be increased to the extent that single counties are entitled to more than two Senators. Article 5, sec. 9 (b), provides that districts in counties entitled to two or more Senators shall be so arranged "as to make such districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants" consistent with the duty not to divide towns or city wards constituting only one voting precinct.
¶4 Substantial equality in apportioning the members of the House of Representatives among the counties of the state was enjoined upon the Legislature by article 5, sec. 10, of the Constitution, except that it was provided that no county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pellegrino v. O'Neill
... ... 456, 462, 592 S.W.2d 100 (1979); Fergus v. Marks, 321 Ill. 510, 152 N.E. 557 (1926); Watkins v. Watkins, 2 Md. 341, 356 (1852); Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 564, 146 P.2d 564 (1944). "[I]n all human contrivances confidence must be reposed somewhere, and ... under the ... ...
-
Lamson v. Secretary of Com.
... ... Reynolds, Sidney A. Aisner, and Jason A. Aisner, Boston, with him), for Lamson and others ... [341 Mass. 266] Matt B. Jones, Jr., City Sol., Boston, for Gibbs and others ... Leo Sontag and James J. Kelleher, Asst. Attys. Gen. (Charles H. McGlue, Sp ... Gordon v. Becker, 329 Mo. 1053, 1061, 49 S.W.2d 146; Rumsey v. People, 19 N.Y. 41, 55; Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 563-564, 146 P.2d 564; Opinion of the Judges, 61 S.D. 107, 110-112, 246 N.W. 295; State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 517, 51 N.W. 724, ... ...
-
Scholle v. Hare
... ... 803:--The Legislature did reapportion at this session; therefore, the Court accepted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss ... 52 Junes v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 146 P.2d 564, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 717, 64 S.Ct. 1288, 88 L.Ed. 1558. The Oklahoma Court recognized that ... ...
-
Cahill v. Leopold
... ... Becker, 329 Mo. 1053, 49 S.W.2d 146; Botti v. McGovern, 97 N.J.L. 353, 118 A. 107; Matter of Reynolds, 202 N.Y. 430, 96 N.E. 87, 416; Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 146 P.2d 564; Noecker v. Woods, 259 Pa. 160, 102 A. 507; In re Opinion of the Judges, 61 S.D. 107, 246 N.W. 295; State ex ... ...