Meeks v. Avery

251 F. Supp. 245, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9710
CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedFebruary 17, 1966
DocketKC-2421
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 251 F. Supp. 245 (Meeks v. Avery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meeks v. Avery, 251 F. Supp. 245, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9710 (D. Kan. 1966).

Opinion

ARTHUR J. STANLEY, Jr., District Judge:

The plaintiffs attack the statute dividing the State of Kansas into five congressional districts and establishing the boundaries of those districts. Chapter 13, Session Laws of Kansas, 1965 (referred to in the complaint as House Bill 764) 1

The statute was enacted by the 1965 regular session of the Legislature of Kansas, and by its terms will apply to the primary and general elections of 1966.

An attempt by the 1961 legislature to realign the state’s congressional districts (K.S.A. 4-114 to 4-119) was aborted by court action. Meeks v. Anderson, 229 F.Supp. 271 (D.Kan.1964). 2

The districts created by the 1961 statute varied in population from a low of 373,583 to a high of 539,592, with a devia *247 tion from equal apportionment of at least 38%. The court concluded that the statute did not conform to federal constitutional requirements and declared it null and void.

In this case, the parties have stipulated the facts and by pretrial order have agreed that the issues are those set out in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Paragraph V of plaintiffs’ complaint:

“1. House Bill 764 does not provide for congressional districts as nearly equal as is practicable, based solely on population, so as to provide that the vote of one man in a congressional election is worth as much as is another’s, in violation of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Although other plans were presented to the Kansas Legislature, which, if adopted, would have more nearly approached the goal of giving approximate equal weight to each vote, these plans were ignored by the Legislature. By the enactment of House Bill 764 the Kansas Legislature wholly failed to provide for equal representation for equal numbers of people and thereby deprived vast numbers of Kansas citizens of their precious right of the franchise, a fundamental constitutional right preservative of all individual rights.
“2. The enforcement of House Bill 764 disenfranchises large numbers of citizens, inhabitants of the State of Kansas, and thus violates Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States and the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws, because the influence and effect of citizens in one congressional district as presently composed is substantially less than the influences and effect of citizens in other of the congressional districts as presently composed.
“3. The enforcement of House Bill 764 dilutes and debases one person’s vote and on the other hand magnifies and enhances disapportionately another person’s vote, in violation, derogation and complete disregard of the cherished constitutional rights of each individual inhabitant of the State of Kansas, the net effect and result of which is to deprive the individuals thus discriminated against of their vote and to create unnecessary inequalities in the relative strength and effectiveness of the several congressional districts, in violation of the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“4. House Bill 764 is invalid and unconstitutional for the reason that the Kansas Legislature failed and refused to determine the population of the State of Kansas for the purpose of fixing the size of congressional districts by employing the 1960 Federal Decennial Census population figures and failed and refused to employ the enumerating standards prescribed in the 1960 Federal Decennial Census in determining the population of Kansas, all in violation of the provisions of Section 2 of the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act of June 18, 1929, 46 U.S.Statutes 26. [2 U.S.C.A. § 2a]
“5. House Bill 764 is unconstitutional in that it places parts of two counties, to-wit: Wyandotte County and Sedgwick County, each in two separate congressional districts, although neither county in itself contains sufficient population to create even one congressional district. Said House Bill 764 thus destroys the integrity of two basic political subdivisions of the state and creates chaos and havoc in the organization for effective political action of the *248 two major political parties in the two separated parts of these counties and in the cities, townships, boards and ' precincts contained within the boundaries of said counties so divided, with the overall effect and result that the voters in the counties so split are deprived of effective voting power, in violation of the equal protection clause of the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In some instances precincts lying within the boundaries of the two counties are themselves split by the splitting of the counties and the citizens living in said precincts do not know and are unable to determine in which congressional district they are to vote, as a result their vote is rendered nugatory. The splitting of Wyandotte County and Sedgwick County as aforesaid is totally devoid of any plan or objective to achieve equality of population in the congressional districts of which these counties are parts and is an unconscionable destruction of a basic governmental unit in each case which will result in the creating of political, social and individual problems of such catastrophic consequences that the counties thus split will be unable to function as effective subdivisions of the state government.
“6. The plan of re-districting the congressional districts of Kansas as provided for in House Bill 764 was not intended to and, in fact, does not provide for compact and contiguous congressional districts best suited and drawn to serve the needs and requirements of the constituents of said respective districts but on the other hand embodies a plan to so draw district lines as to minimize and cancel out the voting strength of substantial segments of the population of the State of Kansas and to dilute, cancel out, minimize and destroy the voting strength of substantial political elements within the state. Said House Bill 764 thus results in invidious discrimination of said persons so affected and violates the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 2 thereof.”

A map showing the district boundaries and population figures appears as Appendix A.

The question that must first be answered is posed by the fourth issue (Paragraph V4 of the complaint). The plaintiffs maintain that the legislature was required by the provisions of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution, and by 2 U.S.C.A. § 2a to employ the population figures developed by the 1960 federal census rather than those shown by the 1964 enumeration of inhabitants required by state law. 3 *249

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

Related

Bacon v. Carlin
575 F. Supp. 763 (D. Kansas, 1983)
Latino Political Action Committee, Inc. v. City of Boston
568 F. Supp. 1012 (D. Massachusetts, 1983)
Travis v. King
552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Hawaii, 1982)
In Re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc.
648 P.2d 1207 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1982)
Bellmon v. Albert
1982 OK 78 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1982)
Bay Ridge Community Council v. Carey
115 Misc. 2d 433 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
In Re the Attorney General, Stephan
595 P.2d 334 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1979)
Dixon v. Hassler
412 F. Supp. 1036 (W.D. Tennessee, 1976)
Cousins v. City Council of City of Chicago
466 F.2d 830 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
Cousins v. City Council of Chicago
466 F.2d 830 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
Opinions of the Justices To the Governor
282 N.E.2d 629 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1972)
Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois
336 F. Supp. 839 (N.D. Illinois, 1971)
Cousins v. City Council of City of Chicago
322 F. Supp. 428 (N.D. Illinois, 1971)
Skolnick v. Mayor of Chicago
319 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Illinois, 1970)
Wells v. Rockefeller
311 F. Supp. 48 (S.D. New York, 1970)
Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri
279 F. Supp. 952 (W.D. Missouri, 1968)
Exon v. Tiemann
279 F. Supp. 603 (D. Nebraska, 1967)
Jones v. Falcey
222 A.2d 101 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1966)
Jones v. Falcey
222 A.2d 134 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 F. Supp. 245, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeks-v-avery-ksd-1966.