Reynolds v. State Election Board

233 F. Supp. 323
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma·Decided August 19, 1964·No. Civ. 64-255, 9130·Published·Cited by 27 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No. 9130, Moss v. Burkhart, reported 207 F.Supp. 885, and 220 F.Supp. 149, comes on for further consideration pursuant to summary order of the United States Supreme Court affirming this Court’s order of reapportionment on its merits and remanding for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, and related cases. We will briefly review the course of this protracted litigation to again put it in proper perspective.

After Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, and pursuant to hearings in June, 1962, we refused to interfere with the up-coming 1962 Oklahoma primary, but declared the Okla-. homa apportionment laws prospectively null and void, and inoperative for all future elections and continued the case, until July 31, 1962, to afford the State an opportunity to provide a remedy for the adjudicated malapportionment. When the matter came on for hearing pursuant to assignment on July 31st, we again refused to interfere with the election then in being, but we laid down positive and precise guidelines for bringing Oklahoma apportionment laws into conformity with the requirements of the Oklahoma and the Federal Constitutions. These guidelines were in accordance with the opinion of the then Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, submitted to the Court in June, 1962. This plan has been referred to throughout this proceedings as “Model C.” We recessed the proceedings until March 8, 1963, to afford the incoming Legislature an opportunity to enact a system of election laws apportioning the State of Oklahoma in accordance with *326 the opinion of the Attorney General of the State, which we recommended as in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Constitution. We then said that if the Legislature failed to act within the time allotted to it, the Court would then be compelled, as a last resort, to reapportion by judicial order.

An Initiative Petition was submitted in the November, 1962, election, providing for the transfer of the apportionment duties of the Legislature to a constitutional reapportionment commission. The Petition received a majority of the votes cast on the measure, but failed of adoption for lack of sufficient affirmative votes. See: Allen v. Burkhart, Okl., 377 P.2d 821. When this case came on for further hearing March 8, 1963, pursuant to assignment, the then Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma and the intervening Senators offered Senate Joint Resolution No. 8, 14 O.S.Supp. §§ 78.1-78.11, and House Bill No. 586, 14 O.S.Supp. §§ 102-106 as an appropriate remedy for the adjudicated malappor-tionment. Upon a hearing on the appropriateness of the proffered remedy, we rejected the House Bill as providing “little or no relief for malapportionment under antecedent laws.” We rejected Senate Joint Resolution No. 8 as a “patchwork of political maneuvering and manipulation to perpetuate the saíne invidious apportionment which prevailed under the antecedent laws.” The 1963 session of the Oklahoma Legislature also referred to the people a proposed amendment to the Constitution providing for reapportionment of both houses of the Legislature in accordance with a new formula with built-in constitutional means for effecting reapportionment. This proposal was referred to as Senate Joint Resolution No. 4, Laws 1963, p. 736 and was ultimately submitted as State Question 416. We considered this proposed amendment only to determine its acceptability as an appropriate remedy, if adopted. We noted the gross disparity provided therein and expressed misgivings, but were careful not to interfere with the right of the people to speak on the proposal. Being convinced by all that had transpired that the Oklahoma Legislature was unable or unwilling to reapportion itself, and realizing the importance of settling apportionment laws applicable to the forthcoming 1964 elections, we then promulgated our order of July 17, 1963, reapportioning the Oklahoma Legislature in accordance with so-called “Model C.” The Attorney General and the intervenors appealed from this order.

During pendency of the appeal, an original action was brought in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to review House Bill No. 586 and Senate Joint Resolution No. 8, to determine if they were in accord with the Oklahoma Constitution. In the same action, the Attorney General applied to the Oklahoma Court for a “Provisional or Conditional Order” directing “how the 1964 elections for legislative offices should be conducted if the Order of Reapportionment entered on July 17, 1963, * * * should be stayed, reversed, vacated, or held ineffective for any reason.” Davis v. McCarty, Okl., 388 P.2d 480, 482. The Oklahoma Court proceeded to determine whether the most recent apportionment legislation in Oklahoma, i. e., H.B. 586 and SJR 8, “meet the test of substantial equality prescribed by our State Constitution,” and apparently assumed that compliance with the Oklahoma Constitution would constitute compliance with the mandate of the Federal Constitution. Upon consideration of this legislation, the Oklahoma Court concluded that the legislation could be made acceptable as an appropriate remedy “without disturbing in any way H.B. 586, except to remove flotorial representation unauthorized by the [State] constitution; and without disturbing in any way SJR No. 8, except to add senatorial representation to meet the test of substantial equality prescribed by our [State] Constitution.” Davis v. McCarty, supra, p. 482.

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

Reynolds v. State Election Board, 233 F. Supp. 323 (W.D. Okla. 1964).

233 F. Supp. 323 (Reynolds v. State Election Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. Fallin
2011 OK 76 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2011)
Alexander v. Taylor
2002 OK 59 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
Opinion No. Oag 48-82, (1982)
71 Op. Att'y Gen. 157 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1982)
Barnett v. Boyle
250 N.W.2d 635 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1977)
Wallace v. House
377 F. Supp. 1192 (W.D. Louisiana, 1974)
Ellis Rader v. Melvin Cliburn
476 F.2d 182 (Sixth Circuit, 1973)
Ajello v. Schaffer
349 F. Supp. 1168 (D. Connecticut, 1972)
Dunn v. State of Oklahoma
343 F. Supp. 320 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1972)
Rader v. Cliburn
376 F. Supp. 463 (M.D. Tennessee, 1972)
Ferrell v. State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Hall
339 F. Supp. 73 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1972)
Sims v. Amos
336 F. Supp. 924 (M.D. Alabama, 1972)
Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois
336 F. Supp. 839 (N.D. Illinois, 1971)
Bruno v. City of Kenosha
333 F. Supp. 726 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1971)
Opinion No. 71-119 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Rosado v. Wyman
322 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. New York, 1970)
Chavis v. Whitcomb
307 F. Supp. 1362 (S.D. Indiana, 1970)
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Long v. Avery
251 F. Supp. 541 (D. Kansas, 1966)
Catlett v. Jones
398 S.W.2d 229 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1966)
Baker v. Carr
247 F. Supp. 629 (M.D. Tennessee, 1965)