MICHIGAN. 



465 



1. It contains no provision for notice of election. 



. iiiitains no provision, nor i.-> tliriv ]>n>vi>ion 

 rl.-f\\ hi-ie. 1'i'r tin- caiivnss <t' vote* east ill the ],<- 

 :-.irict.s ainl porte of districto into which NVayiir 

 County U divided; nor is tlicrv provision tor tin; 

 tnonuMion toany officer of a statement <>f tin: \ot.-r. 

 -in-li district* r i>art.- of district*. 

 e provision for alternate elector* i not covered 

 title. 



' i. It contains no provision for the filling ofvncan- 

 eic> in the r.intiiiL't nc-y of death or disability of both 



r and alternate. 



.".. It is in conflict with Article II, paragraph 2, of 

 ral Constitution. 

 i- repugnant to the fourteenth amendment to 



. ral < '"H.-titUtipn. 



7. It is in contlict with the act of Congress fixing a 

 date for the meetings of the electoral colleges und 

 relating to the certification of election. 



In reference to the sixth point noted above, it 

 was said that the ratification of the fourteenth 

 nmriulnient to the Constitution of the United 

 States, while it conferred no new rights upon 

 citizens, guaranteed those already possessed for- 

 ever, and the most important among them was 

 the right of every male inhabitant of the age of 

 twenty-one years to vote for every presidential 

 elector of his State. This the Miner act denied. 

 If it were declared valid, it would sustain the 

 right of a Legislature to inflict a punishment 

 upon the people of the State by depriving them 

 of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the 

 I'niled States. 



The Supreme Court decided that the law was 

 constitutional. It was held that the use of the 

 district system to a greater or less extent for the 

 first forty years of the history of the country 

 recognizes in the State Legislatures plenary 

 power to control the method of appointing the 

 doctors. 



The case was appealed to the United States 

 Supreme Court, and the judgment of the Michi- 

 gan court was affirmed. The court held that 

 the fourteenth amendment does not limit the 

 right of a State to fix a mode of choosing elec- 

 tors. 



In the announcement of the decision, the 

 court said that the Supreme Court of Michigan 

 had ruled adversely to the plaintiff in error upon 

 the validity of the local law. In so deciding, the 

 Federal question was necessary to be passed upon, 

 and (lie validity of the Constitution and laws of 

 the I'nited States had been drawn into the mat- 

 ter because of this Federal question. 



The court ruled that in view of the language 

 of the clause of the Constitution giving to the 

 State Legislatures the right to determine the 

 method of choosing presidential electors and of 

 the contemporaneous instruction, it can not now 

 be held invalid for want of power in State Legis- 

 latures to pass such a law. " We are clear that 

 the clause of the first section of Article II of the 

 Constitution has not been changed by the four- 

 teen! li amendment, and that the law'is not ob- 

 noxious to that amendment." 



Legislative Session. Important decisions 

 were rendered by the Supreme Court in cases in- 

 volving the constitutionality of the apportion- 

 ment acts of the Legislatures of 1891 and 1885. 

 The decision in the case of the senatorial appor- 

 tionment was given in the suit of a citizen and 

 elector of the Seventh District, which has a popu- 

 lation of 91,420. He asked for the writ of inun- 

 VOL. xxxn. 30 A 



damns to restrain the respondent, the Secretary 

 of State, from giving notice of the election of 

 Senators under the act of 1891, and to compel 

 him to give notice under the act of 1HH5. 1 la- 

 petition also contained a prayer for general re- 

 lief on the basis that the power delegated by tin- 

 provisions of the Constitution to rearrange the 

 senatorial districts is limited ; that the limita- 

 tion was wholly disregarded by the act iu ques- 

 tion, and the act is therefore unconstitutional 

 and void. The opinion says : 



" The unconstitutional)' of the act is clear. 

 The county of Saginaw, with only 16,839 in- 

 habitants in excess of the ratio, is divided into 

 2 senatorial districts, one having 24,189 and the 

 other 23,334 less than the ratio. There is no 

 basis, constitutional or otherwise, for such an 

 apportionment. A county having an excess of 

 only about one fourth of the ratio is not, in the 

 language of the Constitution, ' equitably entitled 

 to 2 or more Senators,' while 1 district, composed 

 of 8 counties and containing nearly 2$ times the 

 population of each district into which the for- 

 mer county is divided, receives but 1 Senator. 

 Equity lias no definition applicable to such a 

 case. The State can not be divided into senatori- 

 al districts with mathematical exactness, nor does 

 the Constitution require it. It requires the ex- 

 ercise on the part of the Legislature of an honest 

 and fair discretion in apportioning the districts, 

 so as to preserve, as near as inay.be, the equality 

 of representation. This constitutional discre- 

 tion was not exercised in the apportionment act 

 of 1891. The facts themselves demonstrate this 

 beyond any controversy, and no language can 

 make demonstration plainer. 



" The petition prays that t"he respondent be 

 directed to give notice of the election under the 

 apportionment act of 1885. The constitution- 

 ality of this act is directly involved in the con- 

 troversy. It is unnecessary to determine whether 

 such infirmitv exists to an equal or a greater or 

 less degree. It is sufficient to say that it is not 

 in accord with the Constitution, and for the same 

 reasons which apply to the act of 1891. It is 

 therefore insisted with great force by the Attor- 

 ney-General that no election should be ordered 

 under the former act, and he also urges in conse- 

 quence that no relief can be granted. He also 

 says that all other apportionment acts are sub- 

 ject to the same objection. Under his reasoning 

 it would follow that, if the act of 1891 is held in- 

 valid, there is no remedy except the Executive of 

 the State decides to call a special session of the 

 Legislature. In such case there would be no 

 apportionment law under which the people 

 might elect a Legislature. While the Constitu- 

 tion requires the Legislature to rearrange the 

 districts at the next session after each enumera- 

 tion, yet wo are of the opinion that each appor- 

 tionment act remains in force until it is sup- 

 planted by a subsequent valid act. It was my 

 opinion that the respondent should In- directed 

 to give notice under the act of 1885, inasmuch as 

 the people have acquiesced in its validity by so 

 long acting under it ; but 1 yield my opinion to 

 that of my brethren, who are of the opinion that 

 the notice should IK? given under the law of 

 1881, the validity of which is not here brought 

 into < onti <>vr[>y,unle>> the Executive should call 

 a special Kmion of the Legislature. 



