Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes

• Decision Date: 25 April 1962
• Docket Number: No. 52,52
• Citation: 180 A.2d 656,228 Md. 412
• Parties: MARYLAND COMMITTEE FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION et al. v. J. Millard TAWES, Governor, and Board of State Canvassers, et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 412

228 Md. 412

180 A.2d 656

MARYLAND COMMITTEE FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION et al. v. J. Millard TAWES, Governor, and Board of State Canvassers, et al.

No. 52.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 25, 1962.

Alfred L. Scanlan, Bethesda (Johnson Bowie and Michael Paul Smith, Towson, Francis X. Gallagher, Baltimore, David MacDonald, Silver Spring, and John B. Wright, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellants.

John I. Heise, Jr., Rockville, and Charles A. Horsky, Washington, D. C., on the brief for League of Women Voters of Maryland, amicus curiae.

James P. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued Oct. 17, 1961, before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

Reargued Dec. 12, 1961, before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and JAMES MACGILL (specially assigned), JJ.

PRESCOTT, J.

In its entire history, this Court has seldom, if ever, been called upon to decide a case of greater, or more far-reaching, importance than the case at bar. It involves the composition and proper organization of the State Government itself, and the correlative duties and responsibilities of the coordinate branches thereof. The problem calls for the best efforts of all three branches of the State Government in order to furnish to the people of Maryland, without the uncertainties of an interregnum and its attendant risk of chaos, an orderly and continuous system of self-government that will not violate any of the provisions of the Maryland or Federal Constitutions. It needs no citation of authority to state that if any portion of the system of Maryland's government infringes upon the Federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land, it must yield to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And if it does infringe upon the Federal Constitution, it is also invalid under our own constitution, which provides:

'The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, * * * are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.' Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 2.

We deem it appropriate, at the outset, to say that the questions involved in this case do not bring on a clash between any two branches of our State Government. We, as members of the Judiciary, are not required to declare any previous action of the Governor or of the Legislature invalid or unlawful. The foundation question posed is whether Section 2 or Section 5 of Article III of the Maryland Constitution, or both (the sections that apportion the members of the General Assembly), in view of the present distribution of population in Maryland, constitute an unreasonable, discriminatory dilution of appellants' ¹ rights of suffrage (insofar as the 1962 election is concerned), in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the FederalConstitution, which is, of course, the Supreme Law of the entire United States, and specifically made the Supreme Law of this State by Maryland's Constitution, as pointed out above.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of Baker v. Carr, 82 S.Ct. 691, presents problems that must be considered by all three branches of our State Government. There can be no doubt that the decisions of the Supreme Court construing the Federal Constitution and Acts of Congress pursuant thereto are conclusive and binding, not only upon the state courts, ² but also upon all other branches and departments of the Federal and State Governments. In the Baker case, as in the case at bar, citizens, who were eligible voters, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They challenged the validity of the Tennessee apportionment statute upon the ground that they were being denied 'equal protection of the laws' under the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of a dilution or debasement of their votes. The District Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (there was also an additional ground not here pertinent). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the subject matter was within the federal judicial powers as defined in Article III, § 2 of the Federal Constitution, and Congress had assigned original jurisdiction thereof to the District Courts by Section 1343(3) of 28 U.S.C. It further held that a justiciable cause of action had been stated upon which the appellants would be entitled to appropriate relief, and the appellants had standing to challenge the apportionment statute. The Court also noted that it had 'no cause at this stage to doubt the District Court will be able to fashion relief if violations of constitutional rights are found.' Indeed, Mr. Justice Clark, who preferred that the case be decided upon its merits, suggested, in a concurring opinion, that the District Court do the apportioning. 82 S.Ct. at page 699.

It is our belief that if any action needs to be taken in order to bring the State's system of legislative apportionment into conformity with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, it is preferable from the point of view of responsible self-government that the State's own duly constituted officials and the people themselves undertake the task, rather than leave to the Federal judiciary the delicate and perhaps unwelcome task of doing so. We take it under Baker v. Carr, supra, that it is clearly a task which the Federal courts would be duty bound to undertake, upon a proper showing of the need therefor. ³ Assuming that the allegations of appellants' bill of complaint are true, this can only be accomplished by action upon the part of the Governor of this State, the Legislature and this Court. We proceed to consider whether this can be lawfully done under our present constitution and laws.

The case reaches this Court upon appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, as a Court of Equity, which sustained demurrers to appellants' bill of complaint requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, ⁴ and dismissed the same.

The bill alleges that the plaintiffs (appellants), with one exception, are residents, taxpayers and eligible voters of the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Prince George's and Montgomery (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 'four suburban counties'), and the City of Baltimore. The other appellant, the Maryland Committee for Fair Representation, is an unincorporated private association composed of taxpayers and eligible voters residing in the aforementioned counties and elsewhere in Maryland. ⁵ The defendants (appellees) are: the Governor of this State, whose duty it is to issue commissions to candidates elected to office in state elections, in conformity with the statements and determinations made by the Board of State Canvassers and delivered to him by the Secretary of State (Code [1957], Article 33, section 143 ⁶b]); the Board of State Canvassers (State Canvassers), whose duty it is to determine and declare, upon the basis of the certified copies of election returns made to them by the city and county canvassers, what persons have been elected to office at any state election, including election to the General Assembly (Section 142[b]); the Secretary of State, who is required to record the certified statement and determinations of election delivered to him by the State Canvassers and to transmit a copy of the determinations to the Governor (Section 143[a]); and the Board of Election Supervisors of Anne Arundel County.

The bill further alleges (with the allegations supported by Exhibits) that the 1960 population figures, based on the Federal census taken in 1960, show the present total population of Maryland is 3,072,999. The total combined population of the Counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George's and the City of Baltimore is 2,312,485, which is approximately 76% (percentages hereinafter mentioned are usually approximate ones) of the total 1960 population of the State. The population of the remaining 19 counties is 760,514, or 24% of the total population. Yet, under the representation now provided by Sections 2 and 5 of Article III of the Maryland Constitution, the four suburban counties and the six legislative districts of Baltimore City each have one member in the State Senate for a total of 10 out of 29 who comprise that body, or 34% of the total representation in the State Senate; and the said suburban counties and legislative districts of Baltimore have a total of 60 delegates out of a total of 123, who comprise the House of Delegates, or 49% of the total representation in that House.

Further allegations of the bill assert that the four suburban counties and Baltimore City are the only political subdivisions of the State subjected to under-representation in the General Assembly, and these allegations are supported by plaintiffs' Exhibit D. This Exhibit shows that when the entire population of the State elects 29 senators, each, population-wise, represents some 106,310 persons of that population. None of the counties of Maryland has a population of over 106,310, except the four suburban counties. And, if the composition of the State Senate were based upon the present population alone, the four suburban counties and Baltimore City would be entitled to 22 instead of 10 Senators. The Exhibit shows that in Baltimore County the mean figure of 106,310 persons represents but 22 percent of its population, and varies upward in the other counties to a peak in Kent County, where the same mean figure represents 692 percent of its total population.

The Exhibit discloses a like...