Opinion
No. 32740.
October 22, 1946.
(Syllabus.)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — STATES — Supreme Court in its discretion would refuse to enjoin enforcement of 1937 act rearranging two senatorial districts and to require that Senators be elected from districts created by Constitution.
Where, for many years, the Legislature had repeatedly assumed the right to redistrict the state for senatorial purposes by piecemeal legislation, and in 1937 the Legislature passed an act rearranging two senatorial districts and this court had not previously passed upon the right of the Legislature to do so, but did in 1943 render a decision holding that such piecemeal legislation is unconstitutional, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to enjoin the enforcement of the 1937 act, and may refuse to require that Senators be elected from districts theretofore created and existing under the Constitution.
Original proceeding by H.M. Shirley and John R. Hickman against J. Wm. Cordell and others, constituting the State Election Board. Relief denied.
H.M. Shirley, of Coalgate, and Jess L. Pullen, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an original proceeding by the petitioners, H.M. Shirley and John R. Hickman, to test the constitutionality of House Bill No. 93 of the Sixteenth Legislature, chapter 19, S.L. 1937, page 21.
Under section 11, art. 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, Atoka, Bryan and Coal counties constituted the Twentieth senatorial district and were allowed two Senators, and Choctaw, McCurtain and Pushmataha counties constituted the Twenty-Fourth senatorial district and were allowed one Senator. The act now under consideration rearranged the senatorial districts in these six counties by providing that Bryan and Choctaw counties should constitute the Twentieth senatorial district, Pushmataha and McCurtain counties the Twenty-Fourth senatorial district, and Coal and Atoka counties the Thirty-Fifth senatorial district, and that each of said districts should elect one Senator.
The petitioners allege and contend that said act is unconstitutional under our decision in Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okla. 554, 146 P.2d 564, and they ask that the respondents be enjoined from holding the elections under said act and that, instead, the Senators from said six counties be elected in the districts as provided in the Constitution.
The act under review was enacted prior to the promulgation of the decision in Jones v. Freeman. In the recent case of Grim v. Cordell, 197 Okla. 144, 169 P.2d 567, we had a similar question under consideration and, following our decision in Jones v. Freeman, we declined to grant relief against an act of the Eighteenth Legislature dividing Beckham, Dewey, Ellis, and Roger Mills counties into two nominating districts. The reasons for withholding relief stated in Jones v. Freeman and Grim v. Cordell apply in the present case, and it is unnecessary to restate those reasons. Relief denied.
GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.