Herweg v. Thirty Ninth Legislative Assembly

246 F. Supp. 454, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7167
CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedAugust 6, 1965
DocketNo. 1214
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 F. Supp. 454 (Herweg v. Thirty Ninth Legislative Assembly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herweg v. Thirty Ninth Legislative Assembly, 246 F. Supp. 454, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7167 (D. Mont. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECREE

This is an action brought by Phoebe R. Herweg as plaintiff in behalf of herself and all citizens and electors of the State of Montana against the defendants above named. The purpose of the action was to compel compliance, by the officials of the State of Montana, with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution in respect to apportionment of the seats in the two Houses of the Montana Legislature as outlined in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632, and other similar decisions.

It is alleged in the complaint that by virtue of certain provisions of the Montana Constitution members of the State Senate are elected upon a purely geographical basis without regard to population of the various senatorial election districts, since said constitutional provisions and certain provisions of the State statutes provide that each county within the State is entitled to elect one senator and only one senator, without regard to the wide differences in population of such counties.

It is also alleged that members of the House of Representatives of the State Legislature are elected upon a combined geographical and population basis and that as apportionment of said representatives is provided in the Constitution and statutes of the State, each county is entitled to at least one member of the House of Representatives. In consequence of the limited numbers of members permitted to be elected in the more populous counties the House of Representatives has been apportioned in a manner violative of the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as expounded in the decisions of the Supreme Court above referred to. It is asserted that in consequence of the constitutional and legislative provisions of the State of Montana, aforesaid, the apportionment system for both Houses of its Legislative Assembly accomplished an invidious discrimination against the more populous counties and sections of the State.

The defendants appeared by an answer which in effect admitted all the allegations of the complaint and upon a pretrial hearing herein, it was stipulated that all essential facts herein have been disposed of by admission in defendants’ answer or by being judicially noticed, and that the only issues of law remaining to be litigated upon the trial were the validity of the Montana constitutional and statutory provisions alleged in the complaint to be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the remedy to be ordered by the Court.

The pretrial order (dated May 24, 1965) further ordered the amendment of the complaint to disclose that the 39th Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana had full opportunity during its biennial session in the months of January, February and March, 1965, to enact a valid plan of reapportionment but that said session had been adjourned sine die, and at said session said Legislative Assembly had failed, neglected and refused to enact into law any plan of reapportionment.

By said pretrial order the complaint was further ordered amended to include a prayer that in view of the failure of said Legislative Assembly to perform its duty to reapportion itself, this court order into effect a temporary and provisional plan of apportionment of both Houses of the Legislative Assembly for use and application for the 1966 elections, and also a prayer for a judgment declaring vacant all state legislative offices including those of hold-over senators (but not including the Lieutenant Governor).

Pursuant to the pretrial order briefs of sundry persons, as friends of the [457]*457court, were presented to and received by the court and the court was furnished copies of sundry proposed bills introduced in the two Houses of the 39th Legislative Assembly purporting to provide for a reapportionment of said Legislature, but none of which were enacted into law during the 1965 Legislative Assembly which terminated in March, 1965. The court also received memoranda disclosing the votes and action taken in the two Houses of the Legislature upon said bills and also copies of the debate in the House of Representatives in respect thereto.

The said cause came on for hearing upon the issues specified in the pretrial order on the 7th day of July, 1965, at which time the court heard from counsel for the respective parties and the cause was submitted to the court for findings and determination. The court finds as follows:

I

As presently constituted the membership of the Thirty Ninth Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana is, in the light of the population of the various counties of the State as disclosed by the 1960 census, and by virtue of the Constitutional and legislative provisions hereafter named, apportioned among the counties of the State in such manner as to bring about an invidious and unconstitutional discrimination against the majority of the voters of the State and against those subdivisions of the State containing the greater portion of the population of the State. Such discrimination prevails both in respect to the Senate and in respect to the House of Representatives.

Article VI of the State Constitution provides in Section 5 that each of the then sixteen counties of the State, existing at the time of the adoption of said Constitution, should be entitled to one senator, and provides in Section 4 that each new county created shall be entitled to one senator, but in no case shall a senatorial district consist of more than one county. Such Constitution, Article V, Section 4, provides that there shall be no more than one senator from each county. As there are presently fifty-six counties in the State, each of which elects one senator, but no more than one, and since the population of such counties, as disclosed by the 1960 census, ranges all the way from 894 (Petroleum County) to 79,016 (Yellowstone County) it is apparent that members of such Senate are apportioned and elected upon a purely geographical basis, without regard to population, and thus has been accomplished the invidious discrimination aforesaid.

By virtue of the provisions of Sections 43-103, 43-104 and 43-105 of the Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, members of the House of Representatives of the Montana Legislative Assembly are elected upon a combined geographical and population basis. Under such sections, each county of the State is entitled to at least one representative, regardless of population. While some counties having larger population are permitted to elect more than one representative, the net effect of the apportionment made by the statutory sections last mentioned is to accomplish an invidious discrimination against the more populous counties and their electors. Thus Petroleum County, population 894, Garfield County, population 1981, Golden Valley County, population 1203, and Treasure County, population 1345, each have one representative, while Yellowstone County, population 79,016, and Cascade County, population 73,418, each have but nine Representatives, and Missoula County, population 44,663, and Silver Bow County, population 46,454, each have but five Representatives.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wallace v. House
377 F. Supp. 1192 (W.D. Louisiana, 1974)
Sims v. Amos
336 F. Supp. 924 (M.D. Alabama, 1972)
Dungan v. Sawyer
250 F. Supp. 480 (D. Nevada, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 F. Supp. 454, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herweg-v-thirty-ninth-legislative-assembly-mtd-1965.