•• 1 Section II LEGISLATURES AND f LEGISLATION ii •••:-•• •. • • , ,, • • 1 .Legislative Organization and Services 2. Legisl-ation V ^ 55- «;» >^ -^ V. 3CP Legislative Drganization; and Services TURE AND PROCEDURES BY HERBERT L. WILTSEE* F STATE legislatures have been the for­ apportionment issue has waned.,Several gotten or ignored brahch of govern­ new national programs, with appreciable I ment during the past generation or support from foundations, came into two, as many believe, that was conspicu­ existence in 1964^-65 to arouse and sustain ously not the case in 1962-65. It. is appor­ interest in representative lawmaking tionment, primarily, that has occasioned bodies, to stimulate needed research in this revival of attention. aspects of the legislative process, and to Apportionment was spotlighted on encourage adoption of needed changes. March 26, 1962, when the United States Notable in this connection is the Citizens Supreine Court rendered its decision in Conference on State Legislatures; another Baker'v. Carr (369 U.S. 186). It has com­ is the American Assembly (of Columbia manded public attention ever since as University) series of conferences on state judicial, legislative and" administrative legislatures, scheduled for inauguration actions have effected alterations in legis­ in 1966. The National Municipal League,"* lative districts, and as the voters have sponsor of the American Assembly confer­ elected reapportioned lawmaking bodies. ences, also has inaugura*: id a periodical In view of the remarkable speed with State Legislatures Progress Reporter as which state legislative reapportionment, part of its State Legislatures Project, had taken place by the close of 1965—es­ launched.in 1965. pecially remarkable since a new "round" Several constitutional conventions or of reapportioning activity was set off on constitutional revision commissions in a June 15, l'S64, with the Supreme Court's number of states have been or are to be ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533) convened, and they will focus attention that districts for both houses of a state on changes in legislative provisions. States legislature should be constructed ". as now involved in such revision programs nearly of equal population as is practi­ include California, Connecticut, Florida, cable. .,."—it appears likely that reappor­ Idaho, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, tionment along basically "one man, one Rhode Island, Tennessee and Utah. Po­ vote" lines will have become an accom­ litical scientists in recent years have plished reality in most states by the close been developing new techniques of analy­ of the 1966-67 biennium. sis and investigation, and these have be­ There are indications, however, that come productive of findings that will our. state legislatures niay continue, to assist in strengthening the legislatures. An receive greater public attention in the outstanding work in this connection is M • coming years, even after interest iii the the volume by William J. Keefe and Mor­ ris S. Ogul, The American Legislative •Mr. wiltsee is Director of the Southern Office of the Council of State Governments and Secretary Process—Congress and the States (1964). of the National Legislative Coriference. Most significant, perhaps, is the action 37 ^ 0 V, 38 THE BOOK OF THE STATES of the past biennium by a large rriajority time inthis or the preceding century that . of the legislatures themselves in initiating this will have been the case. reexaminations of the legislative process. Litigation has involved reapportion­ Such studies were going on at the end of ment in the vast majority of states. As 1965, according to a preliminary report 1965 ended, there were only four states of the Citizens Conference on State Legis­ whose redistricting had not been sub­ latures, in a total of thirty-one of the jected to or actually accomplished by states. It is noteworthy that in many of court action: Alaska, Kentucky (whose these states new legislators from reappor­ 1963 reapportionmient in special session tioned districts have made common cause narrowly averted a suit), Maine and with veteran legislators in deploring the South Dakota. Oregon belonged to this lack of public awareness and appreciation select group until December, 1965, when of the law;makers' tasks, and in urging a suit was filed, by residents of eastern studies that can lead to needed improve- • Multnomah County, alleging discrimina­ ments. A new member of Illinois' "blue tion. ribbon" House of Representatives in 1965 Apportionment plans based on popula­ seemed to capsule the thinking of most tion, as of January 1, 1966, either, were freshman legislators when he stated that used in the last pr are available for use he was "appalled by the conditions under in the next election in a total of forty which we have to work." The basic needs states, according to a National Municipal of most legislatures, certain to be under­ League survey. Some of these have re- , lined by many of the studies now under ceived only provisional court approval, way, were summarized by a long-time ob­ and later changes will be required. The server of the Montana legislature as; 1) remaining ten states either faced court decent offices, meeting rooms and other challenges (Louisiana and Mississippi), physical facilities; 2) a reasonable level or were under orders to apportion or were of compensation; 3) more time for ade­ to see alternative action take place (Ha­ quate consideration of the budget and waii, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North legislation; and 4) more help, to gather Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and analyze factual data as a basis for and South Carolina). decisions. The rapidly unfolding reapportion­ • • 1 • '. ' '^ • •• " . ment developments in 1962 and after APPORTIONMENT have been reported periodically and at When an article corresponding to this length by two national organizations—the was written in late 1963 for the preceding Council of State Governments and the edition of The Book of the States, there National Municipal League. These re­ were only twelve states whose legislatures porting services group apportionment had not been reapportioned sinc6 the activities into two periods: ^ (1) from decennial census of 1960. By the close of Baker v. Carr (March, 1962) to Reynolds 1965 that figure had dropped tq three: v. Sims (June, 1964), when twenty-eight Minnesota, where a 1965. reapportion­ states reapportioned at least one house, , ment was vetoed and the entire legislature relying in most cases on population for will run at lafge in 1966 unless a special one house and on other factors, including session or the court promulgates a plan; area, in,the other; (2) since Reynolds and Pennsylvania, where the State Supreme companion cases announced the "one Court has assmned the task ofVedistrict- man, one vote" criterion. ihg, the legislature having been, unable In the year and a half since the Reyn­ to agree on a plan; and Rhode Island, olds decision: where a legislative commission was cre­ • twenty-four states haVe reapportioned ated in 1965 to supervise a state census one or both houses by legislative action and propose a plan of apportionment for (in eight,,court tests are pending); the 1966 session. Thus it appears likely • five had one or both houses reappor­ that within six or seven years of a decen­ tioned by boards, commissions or similar A nial censusj all of the legislatures will means (Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois House, have been reapportioned-^urely the first Michigan,. Ohio—but Michigan's 1964 •' ' I «3) LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 39 action was invalidated in late 1965); large against the "field," but in a. few » • seven had one or both houses reappor­ (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia and Oregon) tioned by courts (Alabama House, Illinois providing that candidates declare for a Senate, Montana, North Dakota, Okla­ particular numbered post or seat. Of homa, Wisconsin, Wyoming Senate); widespread interest as this is written is • five which reapportioned froni 1961 the Federal District Court decision: in through early 1964 appear to face no im­ Swann V. Adams (Southern. District of mediate . court problem (Kentucky, Florida, December 23, 1965) upholding . Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, West Vir­ a section of a multi-member district pro­ ginia) ; - . - vision in Florida's 1965 reapportionment • two, reapportioned in 1963, Louisiana act. This contested section (Section I (5), ; and Mississippi, currently face litigation; HB 19, Second Special Session, 1965) prtf- , • four are expected to see legislative ac­ vides that no two Senators in a multi- tion in early 1966, three undei: court county, multi-Senator district shall reside order (Kansas, North Carolina, Rhode in the same county until each county in Island, South Carolina); the district has a Senator residin^j^herein, • five face other problems: Minnesota although all voters in the multi-county and Pennsylvania mentioned above; district elect all such Senators. Hawaii, whose 1965 legislative action was The use of "weighted votes"—assigning invalidated, and an order was given by variable numerical values to the votes of federal court for a constitutional conven­ the various members of a legislative body,- tion to act in time for 1966 sessions; to reflect differing sizes of constituencies Idaho, whose 1965 special session appor­ —has been considered. This approach tionment of both houses was invalidated, was suggested by courts as ai temporary in December; and Missouri, where an expedient in cases involving Maryland October 1965 special session proposed an (1962) and Washington (1964; but in this amendment that was approved by the case the court later withdrew the sugges­ voters in mid-January 1966, providing tion). Legislatures in six or eight states for a bipartisan commission to reappor­ have considered but did not act on tion the House of Representatives. weighted voting plans. Courts have in­ In the search for new patterns of appor­ validated variants of weighted voting in tionment, various issues have arisen. The five states: Mississippi and Oklahoma in use of iiiulti-member districts. to elect 1962; New Mexico and New Jersey in part of the membership of a house is one 1964; and New York iii 1965.