Jones v. Freeman

1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564, 193 Okla. 554, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 37
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 12, 1943
DocketNo. 31322.
StatusPublished
Cited by90 cases

This text of 1943 OK 322 (Jones v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Freeman, 1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564, 193 Okla. 554, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 37 (Okla. 1943).

Opinions

HURST, J.

This is an original action brought by petitioner, Jenkin Lloyd Jones, to test the validity of the various legislative apportionment acts enacted since the adoption of the Constitution. Petitioner alleges all of such acts to be contrary to express constitutional provisions, and seeks (unless a valid law be enacted meanwhile) to require the next election to be held under the apapportionment as made by the Constitution, as well as to restrain the payment of compensation to legislators already elected under the allegedly invalid laws.

It has been stipulated that petitioner is an elector and taxpayer of Tulsa county, and that he has voted in elections held under the challenged statutes. We will take judicial notice of the population of the counties of the state as shown by each decennial federal census. 18 Am. Jur. 200.

By article 5, sec. 11, of the Constitution the state was divided into 33 senatorial districts, 22 of them being given one*Senator each and 11 being given two Senators each. By article 5, secs. 12-16 of the Constitution, 109 representatives were apportioned among the 75 counties created by the Constitution, each county being given at least one representative. (Two counties, Harmon and Cotton, have been created since the Constitution was adopted.) However, the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative apportionment contained therein should serve only until 1911. They made it the duty of the Legislature at that time to enact a new apportionment law, based upon the population as ascertained by the federal census of 1910, or in such other manner as the Legislature might direct (no other method- of ascertaining population has been provided),'and they also made it the duty of future Legislatures to enact apportionment laws after the taking of each succeeding decennial federal census. Const, art. 5, secs. 9, 10, and 11. In passing apportionment acts the principle of equality is, as a general rule, enjoined upon the Legislature, so that each voter of the state will have approximately the same power and influence in electing members of the two houses of the Legislature, and in shaping legislation, as every other *557 voter. Thus article 5, sec. 9 (a), of the Constitution provides 'that at the time of each senatorial apportionment after the year 1910, the state shall be divided into 44 senátorial districts, each of which shall elect one Senator and shall “contain as near as may be an equal number of inhabitants.” It further provides that the Senate shall always be composed of 44 Senators, except that such members may be increased to the extent that single counties are entitled to moré than two Senators. Article 5, sec. 9 (b), provides that districts in counties entitled to two or more Senators shall be so arranged “as to make such districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants” consistent with the duty not to divide towns or city wards constituting only one voting precinct.

Substantial equality in apportioning the members of the House of Representatives among the counties of the state was enjoined upon the Legislature by article 5, sec. 10, of the Constitution, except that it was provided that no county should “take part in the election of more than seven representatives,” and that any county having a population equal to one-half a ratio should be entitled to one representative.

The ratio for the House of Representatives' is obtained by dividing the whole population of the state by 100. Section 10 (c). If a county has less than one-half a ratio, it must be attached to an adjoining county. The formula for equalizing the representation in the House of Representatives throughout the ten-year period is set out in article 5, secs. 10 (d) and (e), of the Constitution. While the principle of equality is the rule, exceptions are made in favor of the less populous counties that have as much as half a ratio but not a full ratio and against the populous counties having over seven ratios. Thus under the 1940 federal census, Oklahoma has a population of 2,336,434, making a ratio for the House of Representatives 23,364, and Major county, with a population of 11,946, is alone entitled to one representative, unless an adjoining county is attached to it as authorized by article 5, sec. 10 (g), while Oklahoma county with a population of 244,159 is entitled to but seven representatives, or one for every 34,879 of the population of the county. So, in this instance, the Constitution gives each voter in Major county approximately three times as much influence on legislation passed by the House of Representatives as is given each voter in Oklahoma county. But this is an exceptional case,.and is possible only because the Constitution makes it so.

In 1911, 1921, 1931, and 1941, the Legislature enacted statutes apportioning representation in the House of Representatives (S. L. 1910-11, p. 266; S. L. 1921, p. 69; S. L. 1931, p. 9; S. L. 1941, p. 39)., but no general apportionment statute affecting the Senate has been enacted since statehood. While several acts altering or creating individual senatorial districts have been passed, the majority of senatorial districts created by the Constitution remain unaltered, and at present 34 of the 44 members of the Senate are elected from such districts. As a result, because of the growth of cities and a shift of population since 1907, the representation of many counties in the Senate, upon a basis of population, is now grossly disproportionate to that of other counties. The following table of the six least populous and the six most populous senatorial districts as they now exist, with the population of each according to the' federal census of 1910 and 1940, will serve to illustrate the changes which have'taken place and the condition that now exists:

SIX SMALLLEST DISTRICTS:

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

Related

STEVENS v. FOX
2016 OK 106 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)
Fent v. Contingency Review Board
2007 OK 27 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2007)
City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board
2006 OK 16 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2006)
Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine
2005 SD 84 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)
Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home
2005 OK 27 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2005)
Alexander v. Taylor
2002 OK 59 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
Certification of a Question of Law
2000 SD 97 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)
Emery v. Hunt
2000 SD 97 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)
Dank v. Benson
2000 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
Ethics Commission v. Cullison
1993 OK 37 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
Lepak v. McClain
1992 OK 166 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Nantz v. Nantz
749 P.2d 1137 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1988)
Pellegrino v. O'Neill
480 A.2d 476 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Arthur v. City of Stillwater
1980 OK 64 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
Puckett v. Cook
1978 OK 108 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1978)
Preisler v. Kirkpatrick
528 S.W.2d 422 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1975)
Davis v. McCarty
1964 OK 5 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Moss v. Burkhart
220 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1963)
Preisler v. Hearnes
362 S.W.2d 552 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1943 OK 322, 146 P.2d 564, 193 Okla. 554, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-freeman-okla-1943.