Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, No. B--2955

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtCALVERT; DANIEL
Citation471 S.W.2d 570
PartiesOscar H. MAUZY, Relator, v. The LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING BOARD et al., Respondents.
Decision Date27 September 1971
Docket NumberNo. B--2955

Page 570

471 S.W.2d 570
Oscar H. MAUZY, Relator,
v.
The LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING BOARD et al., Respondents.
No. B--2955.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Sept. 27, 1971.

Tony Korioth, Austin, for relator.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Pat Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for respondent.

Mitchell, Gilbert & McLean, Arthur Mitchell, Fred Head, Austin, for intervenor.

CALVERT, Chief Justice.

Sec. 28, Art. III, Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St. provides:

'Sec. 28. The Legislature shall, at its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, agreeable to the provisions of Sections 25, 26, and 26--a of this Article. In the event the Legislature shall at any such first regular session following the publication of a United States decennial census, fail to make such apportionment, same shall be done by the Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas, which is hereby created, and shall be composed of five (5) members, as follows: The Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum. Said Board shall assemble in the City of Austin within ninety (90) days after the final adjournment of such regular session. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days after assembling, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, or into senatorial or representative districts, as the failure of action of such Legislature may make necessary. * * * The Supreme Court of Texas shall have jurisdiction to compel such Commission to perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this section by writ of mandamus or other extraordinary writs conformable to the usages of law. * * *'

The section in its present form was adopted as an amendment to the constitution in 1948.

The regular session of the 62nd Legislature, which convened January 12, 1971 and adjourned May 31, 1971, enacted a statute, ch. 981, p. 2974 (art. 195a--3, §§ 1--5, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.), apportioning the state into representative districts, but it failed to enact a statute apportioning the state into senatorial districts. The officials constituting the Legislative Redistricting Board as provided in the constitution met formally for the first time on August 24, 1971 for the announced purpose of apportioning the state into senatorial districts.

On August 10, 1971, the District Court for the 53rd Judicial District, Travis County, declared the representative district apportionment act invalid, and a direct appeal was taken to this court. On September 16 we affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Smith, et al. v. Craddick et al., 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Sup.1971).

Following our action in Smith v. Chaddick, relator, Honorable Oscar H. Mauzy, through counsel, petitioned the Legislative Redistricting Board to proceed to apportion the state into representative as well as senatorial districts. The Board declined, stating in a formal resolution as its reason for so doing that it was the Board's official position that it had no jurisdiction to apportion for representative districts inasmuch as the Legislature had enacted a statute apportioning for such districts, and the invalidation of the statute by judicial action did not serve to confer jurisdiction on the Board. As a consequence of that action, relator instituted this direct proceeding in this court seeking, primarily, a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to redistrict for representative districts.

On September 17 we authorized intervention in the proceeding by Honorable Fred Head, a member of the House of Representatives, who had been asserting in a suit in the trial court, and wished to assert here, that the 1970 decennial census had not been 'published' before the regular session of the 62nd Legislature convened;

Page 573

that the regular session of the 63rd Legislature which convenes the second Tuesday in January, 1973, will, therefore, be the 'first regular session' After 1 publication of the census, and only it has jurisdiction under the constitution to redistrict; that since the regular session of the 62nd Legislature had no jurisdiction to redistrict, the Board has none.

The contention of intervenor should be considered first; if it is sound, all other issues in the case are moot and immaterial. However, we do not think the contention is sound.

Admittedly, the language of the opening sentence of Sec. 28, Art. III, quoted above, is subject to the interpretation intervenor places upon it; but when we consider the object and purpose of Sec. 28, in the light of its history, we do not think the interpretation is a reasonable one. That object and purpose obviously was to get on with the job of legislative redistricting which had been neglected or purposely avoided for more than twenty-five years. Intervenor's interpretation would require interpolation of the word 'convened' into the constitutional provision and he would thus interpret it as saying that the Legislature shall apportion into districts 'at its first regular session (convened) after publication of each United States decennial census. * * *' The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Terrazas v. Ramirez, No. D-1817
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • December 17, 1991
    ...n. 7; Seamon, 536 F.Supp. at 938; Bush, 224 F.Supp. at 513, 516 (Noel, J., dissenting). Cf. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570, 574 (Tex.1971) (question of whether Legislature could reapportion in special session not decided); but cf. Terrazas, 537 F.Supp. at 520, 548.......
  • Terrazas v. Clements, Civ. A. No. 3-81-1946-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • March 24, 1982
    ...also the Texas House of Representatives, after the legislative enactment was declared invalid. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570 19 The Lieutenant Governor, William P. Hobby, was Chairman of the Texas Legislative Council; the Speaker of the House of Representatives, B......
  • Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. White, No. 14–0086
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 13, 2016
    ...intent can we insert additional words or requirements into a statutory provision.” (citing Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Bd., 471 S.W.2d 570, 572 (Tex.1971) )); see Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex.2010) (“We presume the Legislature selected ......
  • White v. Regester 8212 147, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1973
    ...in light of the judicial invalidation of the House plan, to also reapportion the House. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570 (1971). On October 15, 1971, the Redistricting Board's plan for the reapportionment of the Senate was released, and, on October 22, 1971, the Hous......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Terrazas v. Ramirez, No. D-1817
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • December 17, 1991
    ...n. 7; Seamon, 536 F.Supp. at 938; Bush, 224 F.Supp. at 513, 516 (Noel, J., dissenting). Cf. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570, 574 (Tex.1971) (question of whether Legislature could reapportion in special session not decided); but cf. Terrazas, 537 F.Supp. at 520, 548.......
  • Terrazas v. Clements, Civ. A. No. 3-81-1946-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • March 24, 1982
    ...also the Texas House of Representatives, after the legislative enactment was declared invalid. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570 19 The Lieutenant Governor, William P. Hobby, was Chairman of the Texas Legislative Council; the Speaker of the House of Representatives, B......
  • Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. White, No. 14–0086
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 13, 2016
    ...intent can we insert additional words or requirements into a statutory provision.” (citing Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Bd., 471 S.W.2d 570, 572 (Tex.1971) )); see Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex.2010) (“We presume the Legislature selected ......
  • White v. Regester 8212 147, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1973
    ...in light of the judicial invalidation of the House plan, to also reapportion the House. Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, 471 S.W.2d 570 (1971). On October 15, 1971, the Redistricting Board's plan for the reapportionment of the Senate was released, and, on October 22, 1971, the Hous......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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