State ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, Room 5, No. 5
| Docket Nº | No. 5 |
| Citation | 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 18 |
| Case Date | September 26, 1962 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 18
M. S. Steers, James E. Noland, as the Indiana
State Election Board, Relators,
v.
The MARION SUPERIOR COURT, ROOM 5, John F. Linder, as Judge
of the Marion Superior Court, Room No. 5, Respondents.
[243 Ind. 308] Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Addison M. Dowling, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for relators.
Nelson G. Grills, Indianapolis, for respondents.
ACHOR, Judge.
Relators ask this court for a writ of mandate and prohibition restricting and confining the respondents to their lawful jurisdiction in a certain cause of action now pending in the Marion Superior Court, Room No. 5, entitled: State of Indiana on the relation of Nelson G. Grills, plaintiff, v. Matthew E. Welsh, Edwin M. S. Steers,
Page 19
James E. Noland, as the Indiana State Election Board, defendants, Cause No. S62-1985.Specifically, relators' petition asks this court for a writ of mandate commanding the respondent judge to dismiss said cause and that respondent be prohibited from entering any further orders, judgments or decrees therein [other than the dismissal of said cause], until further order of this court. We issued a temporary writ.
In the trial court the plaintiff, Nelson G. Grills, asked the court:
'To Mandate the Defendants [Indiana State Election Board] to adopt rules and regulations and engage in any other acts necessary in the opinions of the Defendants to provide a fair, legal and orderly conduct of the election [of] Members of the 93rd General Assembly by providing an apportioning of Members of the General Assembly among the several counties according to the number of male inhabitants above 21 years of age, and the Defendants be Mandated further not to permit in its supervision over local elections the election of Members of the General Assembly from districts apportioned under Chapter 78 and Chapter 271 of the Acts of 1921 * * *.'
[243 Ind. 309] In that case the trial court issued a writ of mandate as prayed.
The constitutional provisions regarding apportionment are as follows:
'The General Assembly shall, at its second session after the adoption of this Constitution, and every sixth year thereafter, cause an enumeration to be made of all the male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years.' Art. 4, § 4 Indiana Constitution.
'The number of Senators and Representatives shall, at the session next following each period of making such enumeration, be fixed by law, and apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of male inhabitants, above twenty-one years of age, in each: Provided, that the first and second elections of members of the General Assembly, under this Constitution, shall be according to the apportionment last made by the General Assembly, before the adoption of this constitution.' Art. 4, § 5 Indiana Constitution. [Our italics.]
Indiana was last reapportioned by the General Assembly in 1921 [ch. 78, § 2, p. 174 and ch. 271, §§ 1 and 2, p. 843, being Burns' Ann.St. §§ 34-101 to 34-104, inclusive].
Faced with the fact that neither the legislature nor the governor have acted to accomplish reapportionment in Indiana, this court is now asked to approve the mandate of the trial court whereby the State Election Board was ordered to reapportion the state and conduct an election accordingly. In deciding the issue, we are governed by the fact that neither the need for reapportionment nor the failure of those responsible therefor can justify the employment of unlawful means not contemplated within the constitutional framework of our government, as a method of accomplishing reapportionment, however desirable. Thus, the specific issue for this [243 Ind. 310] court to determine is: Did the Marion Superior Court, Room 5, have jurisdiction to order the State Election Board to reapportion the state of Indiana and to conduct an election accordingly?
As heretofore noted, under the constitution, reapportionment of the members of the General Assembly is a responsibility cast upon the General Assembly itself.
In support of its position that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings before it, respondent has cited and relied upon the following cases in which the court took jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether acts of the legislature which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., No. IP 90-200-C.
...it is not constitutionally empowered to grant relief. The Indiana Supreme Court recognized this problem in State v. Marion Superior Court, 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 18 (1962). In Marion Superior Court, the issue was whether a state court had jurisdiction to order the Board to reapportion the......
-
Stout v. Hendricks, No. IP 61-C-236
...Indiana Constitution, although by the late case of State of Indiana ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, Room 5, et al., (1962), Ind., 185 N.E.2d 18, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the Indiana State Election Board was not vested with the power and authority to make a reapportionm......
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., No. 90-2439
...488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 402, 102 L.Ed.2d 391 (1988). 5 Page 502 The court below cites Indiana ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 18 (1962), for the proposition that a court should not enjoin a legislature to reapportion, given the political body's role under th......
-
State ex rel. Socialist Labor Party v. State Election Bd., No. 1068S172
...Court contravenes a ruling precedent of this Court as enunciated in State ex rel. Welsh v. Superior Court of Marion County (1962), 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 2. That the Appellate Court erroneously decided a new question of law with reference to the requirements of Burns' Indiana Statutes, An......
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., No. IP 90-200-C.
...it is not constitutionally empowered to grant relief. The Indiana Supreme Court recognized this problem in State v. Marion Superior Court, 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 18 (1962). In Marion Superior Court, the issue was whether a state court had jurisdiction to order the Board to reapportion the......
-
Stout v. Hendricks, No. IP 61-C-236
...Indiana Constitution, although by the late case of State of Indiana ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, Room 5, et al., (1962), Ind., 185 N.E.2d 18, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the Indiana State Election Board was not vested with the power and authority to make a reapportionm......
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., No. 90-2439
...488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 402, 102 L.Ed.2d 391 (1988). 5 Page 502 The court below cites Indiana ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 18 (1962), for the proposition that a court should not enjoin a legislature to reapportion, given the political body's role under th......
-
State ex rel. Socialist Labor Party v. State Election Bd., No. 1068S172
...Court contravenes a ruling precedent of this Court as enunciated in State ex rel. Welsh v. Superior Court of Marion County (1962), 243 Ind. 307, 185 N.E.2d 2. That the Appellate Court erroneously decided a new question of law with reference to the requirements of Burns' Indiana Statutes, An......