Schaefer v. Thomson

251 F. Supp. 450, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6929
CourtDistrict Court, D. Wyoming
DecidedOctober 8, 1965
DocketCiv. 4717
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 251 F. Supp. 450 (Schaefer v. Thomson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Wyoming primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schaefer v. Thomson, 251 F. Supp. 450, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6929 (D. Wyo. 1965).

Opinion

KERR, District Judge.

On November 23, 1964, this Court retained jurisdiction over this cause to afford injunctive and affirmative relief to the plaintiffs should “the Wyoming legislature fail[s] to reapportion the state senate prior to the 1966 election * * ”. 1 At the original hearing of this proceeding we were of the opinion that it is primarily the duty of the state legislature to establish constitutional representation in the Wyoming State Senate. Affirmative judicial relief, therefore, was held in abeyance in order to give the Wyoming State Legislature the opportunity to redistrict the state and to enact a valid reapportionment law consonant with the United States constitutional requirements. Though several apportionment bills were introduced at the 38th Session of the Wyoming State Legislature 2 none was enacted into law.

Due to the failure of the Wyoming legislature to redistrict the state and to provide nearly equal representation in the state Senate on the basis of population, it is now incumbent upon this Court to reapportion the state Senate by judicial decree. Accordingly, on July 23, 1965, this Court ordered a Pre-trial Conference to be held on August 31, 1965. At said Pretrial Conference all the exhibits were offered and received, and the Court heard the arguments of counsel in support of the proposed reapportionment plans. In considering this problem of apportioning the state Senate this Court has had the benefit of the carefully prepared memorandum briefs and statistical analyses. The parties agreed that no additional evidence was necessary for the disposition of this case, and that the Court may decide the case upon the record of the pre-trial conference.

We reiterate our previous opinion that the Wyoming Reapportionment Act of 1963 (Chapter 22, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1963) is not an invidious discrimination insofar as it provides for representation in the State House of Representatives and in that respect it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Holding that the Wyoming Senate, as constituted under said Reapportionment Act, was an invidious discrimination against the voters of the state, it was also the judgment of this Court that Section 3, Article 3 of the Wyoming Constitution is not to be considered when determination is made of the reapportionment of the Wyoming State Senate. We adhere to our original finding “that the conditions and circumstances existing in the state of Wyoming are such that the provisions of Section 3, Article 3 of the Wyoming Constitution, which constitutes each county an election district and requires that each county be represented by at least one senator, is ineffective and is not to be considered when determination is made of the reapportionment of the Wyoming state senate”.

We are confronted, therefore, with the problem of reforming the senatorial districts to comply with the one-man-one vote constitutional standard, and to take care of the transition from the present unconstitutionally composed Senate to the corrected one.

*452 Under the Wyoming Reapportionment Act of 1963, each county in the state has one senator, except for the two largest counties, Laramie and Natrona, each of which is represented by two senators. This results in a representation in those counties of one senator for approximately 30,000 inhabitants, whereas one senator in the smallest county represents 3,062. The only solution to this distorted representation is to rearrange the Wyoming constitutional scheme of districting. Combining some of the small over-represented counties into one district increases the number of inhabitants in the districts and reduces the disparity in representation.

A membership of thirty senators is the constitutional maximum as determined by the present membership in the state House of Representatives. 3 The parties agreed that the composition of the Senate should not exceed thirty members. We acquiesce.

To protect the electorate’s constitutional right to equal representation in both houses of the legislature, we hereby allot one Senator per 11,500 inhabitants or major fraction thereof, and establish seventeen senatorial election districts. Whenever possible, we have preserved the established county boundaries, and have deviated therefrom only when necessary to satisfy the one-man-one-vote mandate of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. We have combined only contiguous counties. (See Appendix “A”) Applying the formula of one Senator for every 11,500 inhabitants or major fraction thereof, the state is hereby divided into the following districts and the Senators are apportioned as follows: 4

Counties Senatorial Total popu- Number Districts lation of of District Senators

Albany ..................... 1 21,290 2

Big Horn .................. 1 11,898 1

Campbell and Johnson....... 1 11,336 1

Carbon ..................... 1 14,937 1

Converse and Niobrara ..... 1 10,116 1

Crook and Weston .......... 1 12,620 1

Fremont and Hot Springs ... 1 32,533 3

Goshen ..................... 1 11,941 1

Laramie .................... 1 60,149 5

Natrona .................... 1 49,623 4

Park ....................... 1 16,874 2

Platte...................... 1 7,195 1

Sheridan ................... 1 18,989 2

Sublette, Teton and North Lincoln ............ 1 11,245 1

Sweetwater ................. 1 17,920 2

Uinta and South Lincoln_____ 1 12,097 1

Washakie .................. 1 8,883 1

17 329,646 30

*453 It is only after careful consideration and serious study that we have concluded that it is necessary to divide Lincoln County. The western and southwestern part of the State of Wyoming is not without its difficulties. There appears to be no way to apportion the population in Teton and Sublette Counties, with a combined population of only 6,840, without placing the north-half of Lincoln County within that district. This action is not unreasonable or arbitrary when one considers the population and geographical arrangement in this western and southwestern area. The only rational apportionment for the four counties in this area is to allow one Senator for the District of Teton, Sublette and the north-half of Lincoln County with the combined population of 11,234; and to join the south-half of Lincoln County with Uinta County as one District with a total population of 12,097, which entitles them to one Senator.

The point of division in Lincoln County is easily ascertainable by a natural boundary line. (See Appendix “B”). To form the new senatorial districts, Lincoln County will be divided at the township line common to Townships 26 and 27 North, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming. All that portion of Lincoln County lying north of the southern boundary line of Township 27 North, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming, is included in the Teton County, Sublette County and North Lincoln County senatorial district.

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

Related

Pueblo v. Ramos Santos
138 P.R. Dec. 810 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1995)
Gorin v. Karpan
775 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Wyoming, 1991)
Brown v. Thomson
462 U.S. 835 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Kallenberger v. Buchanan
649 P.2d 314 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1982)
Brown v. Thomson
536 F. Supp. 780 (D. Wyoming, 1982)
In Re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly
647 P.2d 191 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1982)
French v. State
572 S.W.2d 934 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Buckley v. Valeo
424 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Thompson v. Thomson
344 F. Supp. 1378 (D. Wyoming, 1972)
Sixty-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens
406 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Whitcomb v. Chavis
403 U.S. 124 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Jackman v. Bodine
262 A.2d 389 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1970)
Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar
295 F. Supp. 1216 (M.D. Alabama, 1969)
The PEOPLE v. Walcher
246 N.E.2d 256 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1969)
State Ex Rel. Herr v. Laxalt
441 P.2d 687 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1968)
Harris v. Anderson
412 P.2d 457 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 F. Supp. 450, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaefer-v-thomson-wyd-1965.