No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
State Constitutional Law in 1930–31
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
The most significant case in the field of state constitutional law decided during the past year is that of State ex rel. Miller v. Hinkle, decided by the supreme court of Washington in 1930. This case held that an apportionment act is a “law,” and can be popularly initiated under the initiative and referendum provisions of the constitution of the state of Washington. The court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to accept a petition submitting to popular referendum a proposal to redistrict the state for purposes of representation in the legislature. The legislature had failed for many years to perform its constitutional duty to reapportion the state, and this case illustrates the most conclusive argument in favor of the use of the initiative and referendum for purposes of ordinary legislation, even though the only legislation to which it be applied be that of reapportionment. Many states are faced with a serious problem in connection with over-representation of rural districts in the legislature and under-representation of urban districts. The initiative and referendum seem to offer about the only way out of the difficulty if state legislatures refuse to correct the inequality. The only alternative is that we change our ideas as to the necessity of majority rule in the selection and composition of legislative bodies, a change which the rural districts appear already to have made.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931
References
1 286 Pac. 839 (Wash. 1930).
2 United States Constitution, Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1.
3 Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1930).
4 State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916).
5 132 So. 311 (Ala. 1931).
6 Looney v. Leeper, 292 Pac. 365 (Okla. 1930).
7 State ex rel. Chapman v. Trader, 289 Pac. 594 (N. Mex. 1930).
8 Millholen v. Riley, 293 Pac. 69 (Cal. 1930).
9 32 S.W. (2d) 353 (Ky. App. 1930).
10 West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Pub. Util. Commr's., 152 Atl. 378 (N.J. 1930).
11 State v. Burckhard, 194 Pac. 1103 (Ore. 1931).
12 People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co., 294 Pac. 3 (Cal. 1930).
13 Handler v. Berry, 247 N.Y. 46 (Sup. Ct. Sp. Term, 1931).
14 In re Opinions of Justices, 154 Atl. 217 (N.H. 1931).
15 People v. Swena, 296 Pac. 271 (Colo. 1931).
16 White v. Maverick County Water Control Dist., 35 S.W. (2d) 107 (Tex. Comm. App. 1931).
17 296 Pac. 588 (Ida. 1931).
18 Johnson v. Bd. of Park Commr's., 174 N.E. 91 (Ind. 1930).
19 See supra, note 5.
20 DeMay v. Liberty Foundry Co., 37 S.W. (2d) 640 (Mo. 1931).
21 Barton v. State Bar of California, 289 Pac. 818 (Calif. 1930).
22 Lynn v. Kearney County, 236 N.W. 192 (Neb. 1931).
23 Holly Sugar Corp. v. Fritzler, 296 Pac. 206 (Wyo. 1931).
24 The article referred to appears in 28 Yale Law Jour., 1. Professor Borchard's most recent article on this subject appeared in the April, 1931, number of the Columbia Law Review.
25 293 Pac. 940 (Ore. 1930).
26 Warren v. Brown, 234 N.W. 38 (S.D. 1930).
27 State ex rel. McDonald v. Lollis, 33 S.W. (2d) 98 (Mo. 1930).
28 175 N.E. 400 (Ill. 1931).
29 Giles v. Shaw, 293 Pac. 1103 (Okla. 1930).
30 Bowman v. Phelps County, 36 S.W. (2d) 414 (Mo. 1931).
31 State ex rel. Griffin v. Morgan, 130 So. 868 (La. 1930).
32 In re Petition to Transfers, 174 N.E. 812 (Ind. 1931).
33 Hunter v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry., 174 N.E. 287 (Ind. 1930).
34 131 So. 364 (Miss. 1930).
35 Robinson v. Elliott, 32 S.W. (2d) 554 (Ky. App. 1930).
36 Smith v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 157 S.E. 268 (Ga. 1931); Clay v. Buchanan, 36 S.W. (2d) 91 (Tenn. 1931).
37 293 Pac. 1000 (Wash. 1930): “… a court should not allow the facts of the particular ease to influence its decision on a question of constitutional law, nor should a statute be construed as constitutional in some cases and unconstitutional in others involving like circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, constitutions do not change with the varying tides of public opinion and desire. The will of the people therein recorded is the same inflexible law until changed by their own deliberative action; and therefore the courts should never allow a change in public sentiment to influence them in giving a construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders.” The court cites 6 R.C.L. 46; State ex rel Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1928). See also Harrison v. Nat. Biscuit Co., 157 S.E. 666 (Ga. 1931).
38 174 N.E. 841 (Ill. 1931).
39 Davidson Bldg. Co. v. Mulock, 235 N.W. 45 (Ia. 1931).
40 131 So. 282 (Miss. 1930).
41 152 Atl. 650 (N. J. App. 1930).
42 173 N.E. 750 (Ill. 1930).
43 In re Apportionment, 132 So. 457 (Ala. 1931).
44 Davis v. Wilson, 35 S.W. (2d) 1020 (Ark. 1931).
45 In re Opinions of Justices, 132 So. 311 (Ala. 1931).
46 Barlow v. Jones, 294 Pac. 1106 (Ariz. 1930).
47 So. Ry Co. v. Harrison, 157 S.E. 462 (Ga. 1931).
48 In re Opinion of Judges, 234 N.W. 671 (S.D. 1931).
49 Shepherd v. City of Little Rock, 35 S.W. (2d) 361 (Ark. 1931).
50 State ex rel. Owen v. Fortieth Judicial Circuit, 174 N.E. 423 (Ind. 1931).
51 34 S.W. (2d) 94 (Mo. 1930).
52 157 S.E. 736 (Va. App. 1931).
53 Gragg v. Dudley, 289 Pac. 254 (Okla. 1930).
54 28 S.W. (2d) 745 (Ky. App. 1930). See note, 30 Col. L. Rev. 1199.
55 Ferguson v. Wilcox, 28 S.W. (2a) 526 (Tex. 1930).
56 Ex parte Crisler, 132 So. 103 (Miss. 1931).
57 132 So. 219 (La. 1931).
58 33 S.W. (2d) 643 (Ky. App. 1930).
59 Whittenberg v. City of Louisville, 36 S.W. (2d) 853 (Ky. App. 1931).
60 State ex rel. Prchal v. Dailey, 234 N.W. 45 (S.D. 1931).
61 State ex rel. Common School Dist. v. Sageng, 235 N.W. 280 (Minn. 1931).
62 State ex rel. Diedrichs v. State Highway Comm., 296 Pac. 1033 (Mont. 1931).
63 Sharp v. Jt. Highway Dist. No. 6, 295 Pac. 841 (Cal. D.C. App. 1931).
64 Ward v. City of Chicago, 173 N.E. 810 (Ill. 1930).
65 State ex rel. Don Animos v. Lehman, 131 So. 533 (Fla. 1930).
66 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Carroll County, 33 S.W. (2d) 69 (Tenn. 1930).
67 People ex rel. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Goldfogle, 173 N.E. 685 (N.Y. 1930).
68 State v. Waggoner, 35 S.W. (2d) 389 (Tenn. 1931).
69 153 Pa. 130 (Pa. 1931).
70 State ex rel. Moser v. Kaml, 233 N.W. 802 (Minn. 1930).
71 Cal. Securities Co. v. State, 295 Pac. 583 (Cal. D.C. App. 1931). The author has prepared a separate study on this subject, to appear in the Harvard Law Review for next autumn.
72 State v. Rusk, 174 N.E. 142 (Ohio 1930).
73 Carlberg v. Metcalf, 234 N.W. 87 (Neb. 1931).
74 Reycroft v. City of Binghamton, 245 N.Y.S. 375 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1930).
75 Clay v. Buchanan, 36 S.W. (2d) 91 (Tenn. 1931).
76 McGill v. Simmons, 157 S.E. 273 (Ga. 1931).
77 City of Milwaukee v. Kassen, 234 N.W. 352 (Wis. 1931).
78 State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 293 Pac. 1000 (Wash. 1930).
79 293 Pac. 952 (Kan. 1930).
80 People ex rel. Sarlay v. Pope, 246 N.Y.S. 414 (N.Y. Sup. App. Div. 1930).
81 33 S.W. (2d) 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931).
82 Schwab v. Miller, 153 Atl. 731 (Pa. 1931).
83 174 N.E. 768 (Ohio 1931).
84 People ex rel. Swanson v. Fisher, 340 Ill. 250, 132 N.E. 722 (1930), also permits waiver in felony cases.
85 132 So. 657 (La. 1931).
86 231 N.W. 95 (Mich. 1930).
87 See note, 30 Col. L. Rev. 1058.
88 People v. Vaile, 296 Pac. 901 (Cal. D.C. App. 1931).
89 287 Pac. 729 (Okla. 1930).
90 34 S.W. (2a) 1056 (Tenn. 1931).
91 32 S.W. (2d) 416 (Ky. App. 1930).
92 Robie v. State, 36 S.W. (2a) 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931).
93 Warner v. State, 173 N.E. 599 (Ind. App. 1930).
94 33 S.W. (2d) 938 (Mo. 1930).
95 233 N.W. 447 (Neb. 1930).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.