Petuskey v. Rampton

243 F. Supp. 365, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7380
CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedJuly 3, 1965
DocketCiv. C7-63
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 243 F. Supp. 365 (Petuskey v. Rampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Petuskey v. Rampton, 243 F. Supp. 365, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7380 (D. Utah 1965).

Opinions

RITTER, District Judge.

This proceeding1 is brought to invoke jurisdiction retained by this court September 12, 19642 to grant injunctive and affirmative relief should the legislature fail, refuse or be unable to reapportion validly.

The Utah State Legislature, in regular session for the year 1965, enacted a bill, effective May 11, 1965, providing for redistricting the State, and more nearly equal representation in the Legislature on a population basis. (Appendix “A”) 3

This action of the Legislature is historic. No other Legislature since statehood has constructed legislative districts in both houses so nearly equal in population. This is the end of a long history of frustrated attempts to reapportion, and the beginning of a new era.

The significance of the Legislature’s action is demonstrated forcefully by a few statistics:

1. In an election for state senator under the 1963 Act, one person was given 5% times the voting power of another person merely because he lived in a rural area.4

In an election for state senator under the 1965 Act, the ratio of inhabitants per senator in Weber County districts, which [367]*367are the highest, to the Carbon County district, which is the lowest, is 1.74 to 1. This is dangerously close to giving a person in Carbon County twice the voting power of a person in a Weber County district. But it is a lot better than 5V2 times the voting power.

2. In an election for state representative under the 1963 Act, one person was given 18 times the voting power of another person merely because he lived in a rural area or in the smallest county.5

In an election for state representative under the 1965 Act, the ratio of inhabitants per representative between Weber County districts, which are again the highest, and the Tooele County district, which is the lowest, is 1.55 to 1.

This is a little worse than 1% to 1. But, again is a far cry from 18 times.

The new statute provides that the State Senate shall consist of 28 members, and that the State House of Representatives shall consist of 69 members.

In a Senate of 28 seats, Salt Lake, Weber, Utah and Davis have 19 seats; the rest of the State, 9.

In a House of 69 seats, Salt Lake, Weber, Utah and Davis have 49 seats; the rest of the State, 20.

Salt Lake County with 11 seats, plus either Weber or Utah, each with 3 seats, and any other one district would constitute a majority of the Senate.

Salt Lake County, with 28 seats, and either Weber or Utah, each with 8 seats, would constitute a majority of the House.

It could not been easy for some of the legislators to bring themselves to vote for this measure. There were strong currents of opposition in the Legislature. But the differences were composed through reason and obedience to law. And this action adds lustre to the American tradition of a free people making fundamental changes through reason and discussion and without violence.

This difficult problem in state and federal relationships could be, and in some states has been an explosive one. But not here.

And, it is no reflection upon the members of the Legislature that this difficult and complex matter requires some further action by the court.

Broadly speaking, the Legislature was confronted with finding solutions to two problems: 1. To redistriet the State to conform to the constitutional mandate “one person, one vote”. 2. To work out a practicable and constitutional plan for the transition from the old malapportioned legislature to the new constitutional one.

I

REDISTRICTING THE STATE

Senatorial and representative districts are designated and defined in the Act except where counties are entitled to more than one senator or more than one representative. To take care of this within county districting, provision is made for the appointment of county apportionment committees.

Senatorial districts average 31,808 inhabitants, and representative districts average 12,908. ' Until apportionment committees in counties entitled to more than one senator or representative complete the within county redistricting, we can test the validity of senatorial apportionments only through the use of average population figures in Salt Lake, Weber, Utah, Davis, Cache, Box Elder, Carbon and Tooele Counties. We have actual population figures6 for all districts other than those in the multi-district counties listed.

The highest number of inhabitants for each State Senator is the average figure of 36,915 for each of the three Weber County Senators. The lowest number per State Senator is in Carbon County, where one senator will represent 21,135 inhabitants in that district.

Weber County districts also furnish the highest average figure for House member representation — 13,843. Tooele, [368]*368with a population of 17,868, and two representative districts, has the lowest average representation figure of 8,934.

Weber is the most under represented County in both the Senate and the House. (Appendix “B”) The ratio of inhabitants per senator in Weber to that in Carbon County is 1.74 to 1. As we have said, this is dangerously close to twice as much voting power in the Carbon senator than in each of the Weber senators. The ratios of the most under represented counties are:

SENATE

Weber .....................1.74 to 1

Cache......................1.69 to 1

Utah.......................1.68 to 1

Salt Lake...................1.64 to 1

Davis ......................1.53 to 1

These represent the five highest ratios in the Senate.

HOUSE

Weber .....................1.55 to 1

Salt Lake ..................1.53 to 1

Utah.......................1.50 to 1

Davis ..............:.......1.45 to 1

Cache......................1.33 to 1

The first three of these ratios are the highest in the House.

These figures prompted an analysis and testing of the legislative redistricting against the United States Supreme Court standard. It would be ungenerous not to say that what the Legislature itself has done represents a surprisingly long step forward. But, the high court has said, the “Equal Protection Clause requires that a state make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable.”7

The court’s mandate is not expressed in precisely measured terms. The principle is laid down broadly to construct districts as nearly of equal population “as is practicable.”

We think that means that the Legislature should do the best job it can on the basis of representation by population. And, that calls for some good old-fashioned common sense.

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

Related

Opinion No. Oag 47-83, (1983)
72 Op. Att'y Gen. 172 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1983)
Petuskey v. Rampton
307 F. Supp. 235 (D. Utah, 1969)
Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.
451 P.2d 406 (California Supreme Court, 1969)
Dungan v. Sawyer
253 F. Supp. 352 (D. Nevada, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 F. Supp. 365, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petuskey-v-rampton-utd-1965.