Schaefer v. Thomson
| Decision Date | 23 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4717. |
| Citation | 240 F. Supp. 247 |
| Parties | Harry H. SCHAEFER, Adrian W. Reynolds, Burton W. Marston, Patrick H. Meenan, Darlene Elliot, Ralph A. Urbigkit, and Edwin H. Whitehead, Plaintiffs, v. Thyra THOMSON, as Secretary of State of the State of Wyoming, Thyra Thomson, Minnie A. Mitchell and Everett T. Copenhaver, as members of the Board of the State Board of Election Canvassers, and Clifford P. Hansen, as Governor of the State of Wyoming, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
A. G. McClintock, Walter C. Urbigkit, Jr., and Maxwell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyo., for plaintiffs.
John F. Raper, Atty. Gen., of State of Wyoming, and Dean W. Borthwick, Deputy Atty. Gen., of State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyo., for defendants.
Before PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR and DAUGHERTY, District Judges.
Plaintiffs, as citizens and voters of the six most populous counties of the State of Wyoming, brought this action seeking to restrain and enjoin the defendants, who are state officers charged with conducting elections under state laws,1 from proceeding in the 1964 primary and general elections under Chapter 22 of the Session Laws of Wyoming, 1963, relating to the election of representatives to the Wyoming State legislature. It is alleged that this statute is unconstitutional and void because the representation provided for wholly fails to result in a state senate and house of representatives apportioned among the several counties of the state as nearly as may be, according to their inhabitants, as required by the Wyoming Constitution, and deprives them and other similarly situated of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.2
Applicable provisions of the Wyoming Constitution are as follows:
The pertinent provisions of Chapter 22, as it relates to the apportionment of the Wyoming senate and house of representatives in Wyoming's bicameral legislature, reads:
Applying the formula provided for in these sections, the existing house of representatives was increased by five members and the senate diminished by two.3
Final disposition of this case has been delayed because of uncertainty in the law and the Court's announcement that no action would be taken which would interfere with the 1964 election. By a series of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the law controlling the disposition of this case is now settled. The jurisdiction of the federal courts to grant relief upon allegations which show an invidious discrimination and a substantial disparity in representation in state legislatures is no longer open to question. Furthermore, it is now acknowledged that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires that both houses of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned substantially on a population basis. However, mathematical exactness is not required, "So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy * * *." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d 506. The foregoing rules are applicable regardless of whether the scheme for representation in either house of a bicameral state legislature results from statutory or constitutional provisions.4 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663; Reynolds v. Sims, supra; W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632; Moss v. Burkhart, D.C.W.D.Okl., 220 F.Supp. 149, affirmed sub. nom. Williams v. Moss, 378 U.S. 558, 84 S.Ct. 1907, 12 L.Ed.2d 1026.
Chapter 22, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1963, fixes the basic unit for representation of the different counties in the Wyoming house of representatives at one representative for each 5400 inhabitants, or major portion thereof. It will be noted that this formula creates a situation whereby the four smallest counties in the state have some advantage in their representation in the house, and some disadvantage to other counties, particularly those having more than 5400 inhabitants and less than the number necessary to qualify for two representatives. It is not seriously contended, however, that this disparity creates an invidious discrimination or violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court is satisfied that this divergence from a strict population standard is the result of an honest attempt, based on legitimate considerations, to effectuate a rational and practical policy for the house of representatives under conditions as they exist in Wyoming. For example, Laramie, Natrona, Fremont and Albany, the four largest counties in the state, have slightly less than 50% of the state's population. The total representation in the house from these counties is 29 of the 61 members. Conversely, the four smallest counties, with approximately 5% of the total population, have a representation of 4.
The principal thrust of plaintiff's complaint and argument is directed at the reapportionment provisions of the statute as they apply to the senate. It would appear that when provision was made in Chapter 22 for representation in the Wyoming senate, the legislature acted upon a theory and belief that the apportionment of one house of its bicameral legislature on a population basis would satisfy constitutional requirements.5 As has been stated, this is not the law, and it is now generally accepted by the parties hereto that the Wyoming senate, as constituted under the provisions of Chapter 22, is an invidious discrimination against the voters of the state, and that part of the statute fixing representation in the senate is null and void.6
The primary obligation to establish constitutional representation in the Wyoming legislature lies, not with this court, but with those whose duty it is to enact laws according to constitutional standards. Although there is no longer any doubt concerning the power of the federal courts to protect citizens and to take the necessary action to enforce rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution in cases such as this, still the court believes that the people of the State of Wyoming will best be served by withholding any immediate affirmative judicial relief in order to permit the legislature to consider reapportionment of its senate and to enact, as soon as possible, a valid law which meets the requirements of the Constitution of the United States.7 The court, however, will retain jurisdiction of this case and if the Wyoming legislature fails to reapportion the senate prior to the 1966 election, this court will in due time, exercise its power and make the reapportionment by judicial decree.
It should be noted that the Wyoming Constitution provides that each county shall constitute an election district and have at least one senator and one representative in the legislature, but at no time is the number of the members of the house of representatives to be less than twice nor greater than three times the number of the senate. The court thinks it appropriate that the legal effect of these provisions be discussed. While it is mathematically possible that these constitutional requirements could be satisfied, the court is of the opinion that the conditions and circumstances existing in the State of Wyoming are such that literal compliance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...See Cranston v. Thomson, 530 P.2d 726 (Wyo.1975); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); and Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F.Supp. 247 (D.Wyo.1964). See also Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 387 P.2d 771 (1963).8 In the 1977 legislative session, a governmental claims a......
-
Billis v. State
...107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987). We walked that way once before in impotency. Compare Gage, 377 P.2d 299 with Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F.Supp. 247 (D.Wyo.1964). Operating from the comfortable analytic position of only defending against a claim for "air-tight compartments," the majorit......
-
Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority
...of the Wyoming Constitution. A court will not ignore the general spirit of the Constitution or its jurisdiction. Schaefer v. Thomson, D.C.Wyo., 1964, 240 F.Supp. 247. 32 Section 2, Article XVI, prohibits the legislature from in "any manner" binding its successors. The moral obligation provi......
-
Cathcart v. Meyer
...P.2d at 782; Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority, 575 P.2d 1100, 1129 (Wyo. 1978); Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F.Supp. 247, 253 (D.Wyo. 1964). [¶41] Before we apply these tenets of construction to the issues at hand, it is necessary that we first identify thos......