Schaefer v. Thomson, Civ. No. 4717.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4717. |
| Citation | 251 F. Supp. 450 |
| 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. William H. Harrison, Kenneth Youtz, Wilbur Mead, Lewis F. Hanson and Carl Emerich, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
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.
Paul B. Godfrey and Arthur Kline, Cheyenne, Wyo., for intervenors.
Before PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR and DAUGHERTY, District Judges.
On November 23, 1964, this Court retained jurisdiction over this cause to afford injunctive and affirmative relief to the plaintiffs should "the Wyoming legislature fails to reapportion the state senate prior to the 1966 election * *".1 At the original hearing of this proceeding we were of the opinion that it is primarily the duty of the state legislature to establish constitutional representation in the Wyoming State Senate. Affirmative judicial relief, therefore, was held in abeyance in order to give the Wyoming State Legislature the opportunity to redistrict the state and to enact a valid reapportionment law consonant with the United States constitutional requirements. Though several apportionment bills were introduced at the 38th Session of the Wyoming State Legislature2 none was enacted into law.
Due to the failure of the Wyoming legislature to redistrict the state and to provide nearly equal representation in the state Senate on the basis of population, it is now incumbent upon this Court to reapportion the state Senate by judicial decree. Accordingly, on July 23, 1965, this Court ordered a Pre-trial Conference to be held on August 31, 1965. At said Pre-trial Conference all the exhibits were offered and received, and the Court heard the arguments of counsel in support of the proposed reapportionment plans. In considering this problem of apportioning the state Senate this Court has had the benefit of the carefully prepared memorandum briefs and statistical analyses. The parties agreed that no additional evidence was necessary for the disposition of this case, and that the Court may decide the case upon the record of the pre-trial conference.
We reiterate our previous opinion that the Wyoming Reapportionment Act of 1963 (Chapter 22, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1963) is not an invidious discrimination insofar as it provides for representation in the State House of Representatives and in that respect it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Holding that the Wyoming Senate, as constituted under said Reapportionment Act, was an invidious discrimination against the voters of the state, it was also the judgment of this Court that Section 3, Article 3 of the Wyoming Constitution is not to be considered when determination is made of the reapportionment of the Wyoming State Senate. We adhere to our original finding "that the conditions and circumstances existing in the state of Wyoming are such that the provisions of Section 3, Article 3 of the Wyoming Constitution, which constitutes each county an election district and requires that each county be represented by at least one senator, is ineffective and is not to be considered when determination is made of the reapportionment of the Wyoming state senate".
We are confronted, therefore, with the problem of reforming the senatorial districts to comply with the one-man-one vote constitutional standard, and to take care of the transition from the present unconstitutionally composed Senate to the corrected one.
Under the Wyoming Reapportionment Act of 1963, each county in the state has one senator, except for the two largest counties, Laramie and Natrona, each of which is represented by two senators. This results in a representation in those counties of one senator for approximately 30,000 inhabitants, whereas one senator in the smallest county represents 3,062. The only solution to this distorted representation is to rearrange the Wyoming constitutional scheme of districting. Combining some of the small over-represented counties into one district increases the number of inhabitants in the districts and reduces the disparity in representation.
A membership of thirty senators is the constitutional maximum as determined by the present membership in the state House of Representatives.3 The parties agreed that the composition of the Senate should not exceed thirty members. We acquiesce.
To protect the electorate's constitutional right to equal representation in both houses of the legislature, we hereby allot one Senator per 11,500 inhabitants or major fraction thereof, and establish seventeen senatorial election districts. Whenever possible, we have preserved the established county boundaries, and have deviated therefrom only when necessary to satisfy the one-man-one-vote mandate of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. We have combined only contiguous counties. (See Appendix "A") Applying the formula of one Senator for every 11,500 inhabitants or major fraction thereof, the state is hereby divided into the following districts and the Senators are apportioned as follows:4
Counties Senatorial Total population Number
Districts of of
District Senators
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany .......................... 1 21,290 2
Big Horn ........................ 1 11,898 1
Campbell and Johnson ............ 1 11,336 1
Carbon .......................... 1 14,937 1
Converse and Niobrara ........... 1 10,116 1
Crook and Weston ................ 1 12,620 1
Fremont and Hot Springs ......... 1 32,533 3
Goshen .......................... 1 11,941 1
Laramie ......................... 1 60,149 5
Natrona ......................... 1 49,623 4
Park ............................ 1 16,874 2
Platte .......................... 1 7,195 1
Sheridan ........................ 1 18,989 2
Sublette, Teton and
North Lincoln ................. 1 11,245 1
Sweetwater ...................... 1 17,920 2
Uinta and South Lincoln ......... 1 12,097 1
Washakie ........................ 1 8,883 1
___ _______ ___
17 329,646 30
It is only after careful consideration and serious study that we have concluded that it is necessary to divide Lincoln County. The western and southwestern part of the State of Wyoming is not without its difficulties. There appears to be no way to apportion the population in Teton and Sublette Counties, with a combined population of only 6,840, without placing the north-half of Lincoln County within that district. This action is not unreasonable or arbitrary when one considers the population and geographical arrangement in this western and southwestern area. The only rational apportionment for the four counties in this area is to allow one Senator for the District of Teton, Sublette and the north-half of Lincoln County with the combined population of 11,234; and to join the south-half of Lincoln County with Uinta County as one District with a total population of 12,097, which entitles them to one Senator.
The point of division in Lincoln County is easily ascertainable by a natural boundary line. (See Appendix "B"). To form the new senatorial districts, Lincoln County will be divided at the township line common to Townships 26 and 27 North, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming. All that portion of Lincoln County lying north of the southern boundary line of Township 27 North, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming, is included in the Teton County, Sublette County and North Lincoln County senatorial district. All that portion of Lincoln County lying south of the southern boundary line of Township 27 North, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming, is included in the Uinta County and South Lincoln County senatorial district.
We are not persuaded that the plans proposed by the defendants are feasible. They are too complex. They would require this Court not only to combine certain counties but also to divide each of the six largest counties into several senatorial districts. Defendants' proposed plans do not contain a clear, concise, convenient or equitable method of outlining the districts.
The Intervenors were unable to cite any authorities, nor have we been able to find any, directing the federal courts to sub-district the multi-member districts. We believe that the reapportionment and redistricting herein ordered satisfies the United States Supreme Court standard of "substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State". Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1390, 12 L.Ed.2d 506. Under this posture we need go no further.
Mathematical precision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitcomb v. Chavis
...it represents an adherence to Fortson. Similarly, Harrison summarily affirmed a District Court reapportionment plan, Schaefer v. Thomson, 251 F.Supp. 450 (Wyo.1965), where multi-member districts in Wyoming were held necessary to keep county splitting at a minimum. Burns vacated a three-judg......
-
Jackman v. Bodine
...at 739, n. 32, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d at 643 and at 649, n. 32), and in Harrison the Court affirmed without opinion Schaefer v. Thomson, 251 F.Supp. 450 (D.Wyo.1965), which had upheld an apportionment with a ratio of 2.08 to 1. Swann noted that in neither case was the ratio issue raised ......
-
Minnesota State Senate v. Beens 8212 1024, 71 8212 1145
...924, 936, 937 (M.D.Ala.1972) (house reduced from 106 to 105 so as to have three times the number of senate seats); Schaefer v. Thomson, 251 F.Supp. 450 (D.Wyo.1965), aff'd, Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U.S. 269, 86 S.Ct. 929, 15 L.Ed.2d 750 (1966) (senate increased from 25 to 30 on agreement o......
-
Brown v. Thomson, 82-65
...of population equality that it was unconstitutional. Schaefer v. Thomson, 240 F.Supp. 247, 251-252 (Wyo.1964), supple- mented, 251 F.Supp. 450 (1965), aff'd sub nom. Harrison v. Schaefer, 383 U.S. 269, 86 S.Ct. 929, 15 L.Ed.2d 750 (1966).2 But the court upheld the apportionment of the state......