Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri

279 F. Supp. 952
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedMarch 4, 1968
Docket1064
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 279 F. Supp. 952 (Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri, 279 F. Supp. 952 (W.D. Mo. 1968).

Opinions

JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge,

joined by WILLIAM R. COLLINSON, District Judge.

I.

This case presents for judicial review the third effort made by a Missouri General Assembly since the 1960 decennial census to divide this State into ten congressional districts of as nearly equal population as is practicable, in conformity with the dual mandates of Article 3, Section 45 of the 1945 Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S. and of Art. I, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Application of principles established by Art. I, § 2 of the Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, requires that we hold that this third effort does not pass constitutional muster.

The initial decision of this Court, rendered January 4, 1965, determined that the 1961 Missouri Congressional Redistricting Act was unconstitutional but deferred granting any judicial relief “until the Legislature of the State of Missouri has once more had an opportunity to deal with the problem;” this Court refused to presume that “the Legislature of the State of Missouri will refuse to take all necessary action to comply with its duty under the Federal, as well as its own State, Constitution.” Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri, 238 F.Supp. 187, 191 (W.D.Mo.1965) (Preisler I).

Following Preisler I the Seventy-third General Assembly of Missouri enacted the 1965 Congressional Redistricting Act, Mo.Stat.Ann. Title 9, §§ 128.202-128.305 (1965). That Act was subjected to judicial scrutiny and held to be constitutionally void on the ground that it also failed to comply with the command of Art. I, § 2 of the Constitution. Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri, 257 F.Supp. 953 (W.D.Mo.1966) (Preisler II). Our decree in the second case, however, for reasons fully stated in light of Swann v. Adams II, 383 U.S. 210, 86 S. Ct. 767, 15 L.Ed.2d 707 (1966), permitted the 1966 Congressional elections to be conducted under the constitutionally void 1965 Act. We retained jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing any new Congressional redistricting plan enacted by a future General Assembly and signed by the Governor. 257 F.Supp. at 982. On January 9, 1967 the judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450, 87 S.Ct. 613, 17 L.Ed.2d 511 (1967).

In 1967 the Seventy-fourth General Assembly of Missouri again tackled the problem. Its effort culminated in legislation which became effective on October 13, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the 1967 Act, Mo.Stat.Ann. Title 9, §§ 128.-202-128.305 (1967). This case pends on the Attorney General of Missouri’s motion for approval of the 1967 Act and for dismissal of this case.

Plaintiffs contend that the 1967 Act is unconstitutional because the populations of the districts were not “as equal [956]*956as is practicable,” since the variances between district populations are substantial. The 1967 Act is not challenged on any ground other than failure to comply with Art. I, § 2 of the federal Constitution. The parties who intervened in Preisler II and urged approval of the 1965 Act have appeared and participated in the same role in regard to the 1967 Act.

Defendants attached to their pending motion a map of the State of Missouri which illustrated the boundaries of the districts and purported to show the actual population of each district. Defendants’ motion alleged that “all of the population figures referred to [on that exhibit] are based on the United States Census for 1960.” Plaintiffs’ responsive pleading suggested that the population data presented by defendants in their motion did not accurately reflect the 1960 census population data. Procedures were therefore adopted at a prehearing conference under which accurate figures were promptly obtained from the Bureau of Census.

The following table illustrates the differences between the population data presented by Appendix B attached to defendants’ motion and that established by the accurate 1960 census figures:

Comparison of Population Figures Represented As Accurate in Defendants’ Appendix B With Actual 1960 Census Figures in Evidence

District Population Variance Represented Represented Def. App. B Def. App. B Actual Census Population Actual Census Variation

1 436,417 + 4,436 439,746 + 7,765

2 442,302 +10,321 436,448 + 4,467

3 431,507 — 474 436,099 + 4,118

4 423,815 — 8,166 419,721 —12,260

5 430,412 — 1,569 431,178 - 803

6 425,238 - 6,743 422,238 — 9,743

7 436,769 + 4,788 436,769 + 4,788

8 439,984 + 8,003 445,523 +13,542

9 428,223 - 3,758 428,223 - 3,758

10 423,866 — 8,115 423,868 — 8,113

It is apparent that defendants’ Appendix B accurately reflected the actual population of only two of the ten districts (Districts 7 and 9). The variations in regard to two other districts (Districts 5 and 10) are obviously minor.1

Before the facts concerning the actual population variances were established, defendants’ sole legal contention that the [957]*9571967 Act be approved was based on the notion that “the districts resulting from the 1967 Congressional Redistricting Act comply with the doctrine of de minimis in regard to population variances between the districts.” After defendants learned that the actual population variances established by the 1967 Act were in many instances substantially greater than those set forth in defendants’ pending motion, they advised the Court that defendants would like to adduce evidence to attempt to justify the greater variations that had in fact' been established.

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

Related

Branch v. Smith
538 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 2003)
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)
Assembly v. Deukmejian
639 P.2d 939 (California Supreme Court, 1982)
Brenner v. School District of Kansas City, Missouri
315 F. Supp. 627 (W.D. Missouri, 1970)
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler
394 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Williams v. Rhodes
393 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 F. Supp. 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preisler-v-secretary-of-state-of-missouri-mowd-1968.