State ex rel. Welsh v. Marion Superior Court, Room 5
| Decision Date | 26 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,No. 30253,R,5,30253 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana on the relation of Matthew E. WELSH, Edwin 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, Roomespondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Addison M. Dowling, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for relators.
Nelson G. Grills, Indianapolis, for respondents.
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 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 * * *.'
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 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 reapportioned the state were, in fact, constitutional. Brooks v State ex rel. Singer (1904), 162 Ind. 568, 70 N.E. 980; Denney, Clerk et al. v. State ex rel. Basler (1895), 144 Ind. 503, 42 N.E. 929, 31 L.R.A. 726; Parker et al. v. State ex rel. Powell (1893), 133 Ind. 178, 32 N.E. 836, 33 N.E. 119, 18 L.R.A. 567.
The foregoing cases are distinguishable from the case at bar. In those cases the court merely ruled upon the constitutionality of reapportionment acts, previously passed by the legislature. This the court may do with propriety. However, in the primary case, the plaintiff is asking a court to mandate the State Election Board to reapportion the state and conduct an election accordingly although the power of reapportionment is, by constitution, vested solely in the General Assembly.
The powers and duties of the State Election Board have been stated by the legislature as follows:
'The board is hereby vested with the power and charged with the duty of supervising all elections and administering the election laws of the state in their state-wide application and especially as they relate to federal and state elective officers.
'Said board, subject to the provisions of the laws of this state, shall have the power, and it shall be its duty, to formulate, adopt and promulgate rules and regulations governing the conduct of elections. * * *' Acts 1945, ch. 208, § 11, p. 680, being § 29-3004, Burns' 1949 Repl.
Thus, the State Election Board is merely an administrative body created by the legislature to perform the specific and limited functions of 'supervising all elections and administering the election laws of the state * * * [and] adopt and promulgate rules and regulations * * *' for that purpose. § 29-3004, supra. The authority thus vested in the State Election Board does not, under any theory, vest the board with the power and authority to make a reapportionment of the General Assembly or to conduct an election in any manner other than as provided by the election laws of the state, as enacted by the legislature which created the board [§ 29-3004, supra].
We conclude therefore that the respondent court had no jurisdiction to mandate the performance of this act by the State Election Board.
The temporary writ of mandate heretofore issued is made permanent.
Relators here seek a writ of mandate and prohibition restricting and confining the respondents to their lawful jurisdiction in a certain cause of action filed and now pending in the Marion Superior Court, Room No. 5, Marion County, Indiana, entitled: State of Indiana on the relation of Nelson G. Grills, plaintiff, v. Matthew E. Welsh, Edwin M. S. Steers, James E. Noland, as the Indiana State Election Board, defendants, and being cause No. S62-1985 in such court.
Relators pray that an alternative writ of mandate and prohibition issue out of this court commanding the respondent Court and Judge thereof to sustain the motion of said relators to dismiss cause No. S62-1985, or show cause on or before a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd.
...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
...Acts and Article 4, Sections 4 and 5 of the 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 th......
-
Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd.
...cert. denied, 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 402, 102 L.Ed.2d 391 (1988). 5 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 und......
-
State ex rel. Socialist Labor Party v. State Election Bd., 1068S172
...That the order of the Appellate 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 18. 2. That the Appellate Court erroneously decided a new question of law with reference to the require......