Section II ^ LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION I. Legislative Organization and Services 2. ation ^ SI v^ Legislative Organization and ServiGes STRUCTIJRE AND PROCEDURES •'»,•.-* ' BY WALTER T. GRIBBEN* ppoRTiOiNMENT problems continued commission provided for the purpose by to stand out in legislative activities the Legislature. In a few States apportion­ A*• during the 1966-67 biennium, but ment plans are still temporary, and the emerging theme was one of change in further action will be needed to fulfill other respects also—modernization of the judicial mandates, either legislatively or deliberative setting, removal of anti­ by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, quated restrictions, acceptance of new 1966-67 was a time for perfecting appor­ technolog)', revision of structures and tionment programs in anticipation of o|x;rating procedures, and improvement further action after the 1970 census. in compensation andworkingTonditions. When a chapter corresponding to this A spirit of modernization was marked in was written in late 1965 for the preceding the state capitols, reflecting new public edition of The Book of the States, only interest and involvement in legislative three Legislatures had not been reappor­ affkirs and concern for restoi-ation of the tioned since the decennial census of 1960: Legislature iis an equal force in American Minnesota's, where a 1965 apportion-: state government. -- ment plan was vetoed;- Pennsylvania's, where the State Supreme Court assumed APPORTIONMENT the task because of legislative disagree­ Since the 5flAer v. C^rr decision of the ment; nnd Rhode Island's, where a legis­ U.S. Supreme Gourt.in 1962, apportion­ lative commission waS establisheci to ment has followed a Tong, and in some supervise a state census and propose an States arduous, course. By the end of 1967 apportionment plan. By the end of 1967, eveiy State had revised representational reapportionment had been accomplished \ districts for at least oneand inmost cases in all States, although several were ap^ both of its legislative houses, but only one proved only for interim periods, arid State had managed to do so without litiga-, Legislatures began the job of making tion. Judicial intervention notwithstand­ minor adjustments foi- problems which ing, the reapportionment record of the- -had- been-overlooked and those which Legislatures was impressive. In only ten subsequently appeared. States were disagreements so substantial Temporary plans have been in" effect in that a, court was forced, to draw new dis­ nine States where legislative apportion­ <a& • trict lines for one or both houses. In all ment efforts were approved only for short- other States reapportionment was ac­ term use: Delaware was required to reap­ complished by legislative ^tion or by a portion again by January 10, 1968; Kansas had until April 1, 1968, to draw *Mr. Gribben is Midwestern Regional Director new Senate districts; it was necessary for df the Council of State Governments and^Secre- tar)' of the Committee on Legislative Riilcs of the lowai Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon and South National Legislative Conference. Carolina to reapportif)n for the 1968 elec- 89 ^ 40 THE BOOK OF THE STATES tiohs; Texas, iicting under court orders, gubernatorial board, and in New York recently eliminated temporary flotorial the Senate was reapportioned by a court, • districts. Hawaii's reapportioned Senate • the House by a commission. was to continue only until a 1968 consti­ • The Alabama flouse and the Senates of tutional convention could make perma­ New Mexico and Wyoming were reappor­ nent arrangements for both houses. The tioned by courts, the other houses by the Governor of Alaska, invoking his execu^ Legislature. tive powers, appointed a board to reap­ In theory at least, the one-man, one- portion the Senate, and the action was vote principle should produce a repre­ upheld in a subsequent court dispute. sentational ratio in which a majority of Apportionment of both houses, howevep, the legislators in each house are certain will be reconsidered before . the 1970 to be elected by a majority of the people. census. In 4 practice, reapjDortionment did not During thp biennium, constitutional quite reach that goal. In only two States. amendments on apportionment were ap­ —Arizona and Michigan—has the theo­ proved by voters in Colorado, Georgia, retical majority ratio been achieved for Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Tennessee both houses.. Representational majorities and Wyoming, and a proposal was re­ otherwise exist in the Colorado House jected in Nebraska. Parts of the Georgia and the Senates of Alaska, Delaware,. plan subsequently were invalidated by a Florida, Maine, Missouri and New U.S. District Gourt. An apportionment Hampshire. It was nearly achieved in plan based upjdn registered voters rather nine States in which an even 50 per cent than population was invalidated by the of the legislators represent a majority of Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. the people: the Florida House and the It was expected that apportionment also Senates of Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, would be on the agenda of a Pennsylvania Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio> Pennsyl­ constitutional convention to be held in vania and Rhode Island. In all. other 1968. cases, a majority of legislators represent Since Baker v. Can, apportionnient less than half the popiilafion, ranging activities have been attended by litigation down to 43 per cent for the Houses of in forty-nine States; only Maine iias Georgia and Maine, "46 "per cent for the avoided a court dispute. New Mexico Senate. With reapportionment completed, if Although mathematical perfection was only temporarily in a few caseS; state ac­ accomplished in so few cases, the contriist tions may be recapitulated as follows: __, With pre-apportionment days is startling. • Durihg 1966 and 1967, fifteen States re­ In 1962, representation ranged from a apportioned both House and Senate: high of 48 per cent in one Hou^e and two ^ Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Loui­ Senates t.o. lows of 12 per cent"iiii'"three siana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Houses and 8 per cent in one Senate. New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, As Legislatures and other apportioning, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode IsTarfd and agencies sought to unravel the* knotty Tennessee; Alaska, Maine, New Mexico; problems of equal representation, they and South Carolina apportioned their tui-ned to experimental devices when Senates, and Kansas its House. division of population proved overly dif­ • Since 1962, Legislatures have reappor­ ficult- or .unwieldy. Among the most tioned tliemselves in thirty-three States. widely—U'sert. were multimember and • Both houses were apportioned by a floterial districts, the latter b^ing groups court in eight States: Arizona, Florida, of single-member districts which are com­ Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Okla­ bined for the purpose of electing one or homa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. more additional legislators. The States • Apportionment of both House and also use. two kinds of multimember dis­ Senate was accomplished by a board or tricts; those in which members are elected commission in four: Arkansas, Illinois, "at large," andthpse in which each candi­ Missouri and Ohiis. date in'a" district runs for and is elected • The Alaska House was revised by a torn specific, numbered seat. LEGISTlATlJRES AND LEGISLATION 41 House and Senate districts are single- •"Although population is now the basis member in sixteen States: California,' ot apportionment plans in nearly all Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kan­ States, several Legislatures have experi­ sas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New mented with other devices. Hawaii tus­ Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, sled for some tijne with the problem of a Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and-: population distributed among eight, Wisconsin. Multirnember districts are widely-separated islands. A plan,.,based used exclusively in the West Virginia upon registered voter distribution was Senate and .the Houses of Arizona, Illinois finally approved by the court on the and North Dakota. Combinations of the theory that it conformed generally to -two-(in some instances with floterial dis­ population patterns. At one point, the. tricts), are used in twenty-two States for Nebraska Senate devised a system of dis­ the Senate and thirty for the House. tricts weighted by both population aiui The numberof multimember districts area, but it did not survive judicial chal­ follo\vS no discernible paltern.For Senate lenge. Several States also have considered use, they range; in number from sixteen weighted votes; that is, assigning varying districts in West Virginia, which uses values to the votes of the various members rhem exclusively, to two each in Alaska of a legislative body, according to the size and Nevada. We^t Virginia excepted, the of the constituency. In the years immejjii- Senates of Maryland (fourteen of sixteen ately following the U.S. Supreme Court districts) and Hawaii (seven of eight dis­ reapportionment decisions, this approach tricts) make the greatest proportionate" "w'as suggested for expediency by courts in use of multimemberdistricts, and South Maryland and Washington (where it Was Dakota (three of tweniy-i'iiue) the least. later withdrawn), and" weighted voting Multimember. House districts vary plans were ruled invalid by courts in from 193 in New Hampshire (which has a Mississippi, Oklahoma, New Mexico, House membership of 400) to eight in New Jersey and New A'ork. New Mexico .Arizona. Proportionate House use is.high votei*s rejected a constitutional amend- in Florida (twenty-one of t:(Venty-four dis­ ,nient which would have permitted tricts) and low ill Tennessee (eleven of weighted voting in one hous'e.^ ^ninety-three districts). ; . The number of seats per multiple dis­ ' • SIZES AND TERMS trict is equally varied. Arizona" has as Apportionment also bre^ught signifi­ many as fifteen seats in a Senate district cant changes in tlie sizes of Legislatures. and thirty in a Houses-district. The By November 1, 1967,' there were 7,6'I5 Senate low is in North Carolina, with legislative seats in the fifty States, 219 less three seats; the House low, in Idaho and tha:n in the previous biennium.