People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner
Decision Date | 04 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 38848,38848 |
Citation | 32 Ill.2d 212,205 N.E.2d 33 |
Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. Robert H. ENGLE, Appellant, v. Otto KERNER, Governor, et al., appellees. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Richard A. Michael, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for Kerner, Gov.
Don H. Reuben, Lawrence Gunnels, and Jack S. Levin, Chicago, for William J. Scott, Treasurer of State of Illinois.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Sangamon County denying relator's prayer for declaratory judgment and finding, inter alia, that the 1954 amendment to article IV of the Illinois constitution, S.H.A. was validly proposed and does not violate either the constitutions of Illinois or the United States. Important questions concerning constitutional legislative reapportionment are here presented. The cause is here directly as questions arising under both the United States and State constitutions are involved. Illinois Const. art. VI, sec. 5; Supreme Court Rule 28-1, S.H.A. Ch. 110, § 101.28-1.
Relatory appellant herein, a voter, taxpayer and potential candidate for the Illinois House, instituted suit in the circuit court asking for a declaratory judgment that (1) this amendment to article IV of the Illinois constitution (article IV, secs. 6, 7, 8), is totally invalid; (2) the 68th (1953) General Assembly proposed amendments to more than three articles of the constitution in violation of the Gateway Amendment (article XIV, section 2); (3) the 68th General Assembly was without power to propose any amendment denying people equality (on a population basis) of representation in the Illinois senate or in constitutional conventions; (4) the General Assembly consists of 51 senators and 153 representatives (instead of the present 58 and 177, respectively) under the last valid reapportionment of 1901 pursuant to the constitution of 1870; and (5) the 1964 amendments to the Election Code are invalid.
The 1954 amendment to article IV specifically provides:
Relator first argues that because the amendment to article IV does not itself provide a legislative redistricting scheme, it violates article XIV, section 2, which requires that a proposed constitutional amendment be 'entered in full' on the Journals of both Houses of the legislature and 'published in full' at least three months preceding the general election. It is maintained that the proposed amendment must itself describe the precise geographical boundaries of the district, as well as all other details, in order to comply with 'entered and published in full' requirements. However, relator cites no provision in the constitution nor any other authority for this proposition: i. e. that the constitution may not establish reapportionment standards and leave to the General Assembly the task of devising a statutory scheme in compliance therewith. This has been the traditional method of reapportionment, and this court has held that the legislature may exercise discretion in reapportioning according to constitutional standards. (See People ex rel. Heffernan v. Carlock, 198 Ill. 150, 160-161, 65 N.E. 109; People ex rel. Woodyatt v. Thompson, 155 Ill. 451, 40 N.E. 307.) We find nothing constitutionally offensive in the procedures here employed.
Relator next argues that the effect of section 6 of article IV of the 1954 amendment, with regard to the Senate, was to charge the succeeding General Assembly with the responsibility and the power to legislatively determine and freeze the senatorial districts, the only manner by which they might subsequently be changed being constitutional amendment, as (People ex rel. Giannis v. Carpentier, 30 Ill.2d 24, 26, 195 N.E.2d 665,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ryan v. State Bd. of Elections of State of Ill.
...Ryan and Otto cases, the state court case in Germano involved issues of both federal and state law. See People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner, 32 Ill.2d 212, 213, 205 N.E.2d 33, 34 (1965). The state court could have decided the case on the basis of state law-without reaching the federal constituti......
-
Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois
...apportionment of the Illinois State Senate were filed in both the Illinois Supreme Court and this Court. See People ex. rel. Engle v. Kerner, 32 Ill.2d 212, 203 N.E.2d 33 (1965), and Germano v. Kerner, 241 F.Supp. 715 (N.D.Ill. 1965). Because of the potential controversy between this Court ......
-
Terrazas v. Ramirez
...N.E.2d 165 (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 30, 86 S.Ct. 1284, 16 L.Ed.2d 332 (1966), pursuant to jurisdiction retained in 32 Ill.2d 212, 205 N.E.2d 33 (1965); Kruidenier v. McCulloch, 261 Iowa 1309, 158 N.W.2d 170 (1968), pursuant to jurisdiction retained in 258 Iowa 1121, 142 N.W.2d 355......
-
Orans, Matter of
...of legislative apportionment includes the power to retain jurisdiction pending corrective legislative action. (People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner, 32 Ill.2d 212, 205 N.E.2d 33; approved Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407, 85 S.Ct. 1525, 14 L.Ed.2d 477; Jackman v. Bodine, 43 N.J. 453, 205 A.2d 713; ......