but each county shall have at least one representative. Every county containing five ratios or more shall have one representative for every full ratio. Every city containing a population equal to a ratio shall elect separately its proportion of the representatives allotted to the county in which it is located. Every city entitled to more than 4 representatives, and every county having over 100,000 inhabitants shall be divided into districts of compact and contiguous territory, each district to elect its proportion of representatives according to its population, but no district shall elect more than four representatives. $ "TIME OF APPORTIONMENT "SEC. 18. The general assembly at its first session after the adoption of this constitution, and immediately after each U.S. decennial census, shall apportion the State into senatorial and representative districts agreeably to the provisions of the two next preceding sections." Pennsylvania, while not without fault in the past, in January 1964 met its obligation under its constitution by apportioning the seats in both houses of its legislature. These 1964 Apportionment Acts were tested both in the Federal and State courts. See Drew et. al. v. Scranton, civil actions Nos. 8293 and 8338, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, (April 9, 1964) and Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438 (September 29, 1964). In both courts, Pennsylvania's legislative apportionment was found invalid solely because of compliance with constitutional requirements which have governed reapportionment in Pennsylvania for 90 years. The constitution of 1776 provided for representation by cities and counties and from 1790 factors other than population have been mandated. The constitutional requirements contained in the Pennsylvania constitution were approved by a referendum of all the people. It is significant that five times since 1891 the matter of calling a convention to revise the constitution has been submitted to the people and five times they have rejected it, indicating satisfaction with present provisions or at least no urgency for change; the last such rejection was in 1963. It is submitted that the reasons which prompted the utilization of factors other than population throughout the whole existence of Pennsylvania as a State, are valid today. As Mr. Chief Justice Bell observed in Butcher v. Bloom, a rule which completely disregards and discards history, tradition, geography, local interests, and local problems, differences in dialects and language, in customs, in ideas and ideals in each State and also in many parts of each State; which will almost inevitably deprive minority groups of a fair and effective representation in legislative halls of their principles, customs, traditions, their particular problems and desired solutions, and the preservation of their cherished way of life; which will insure that their interests will not only be diluted, but will be in practical effect, frequently ignored; which is so far removed and so different from what the people in each State of the United States have believed in and cherished and on which they have for a century or more based their government and their way of life; ought not to be allowed to stand. A plan which is acceptable for representation in the Congress as adequate to preserve free government should not be less so when applied to a State legislature. Under the form and kind of government established by our constitution, Pennsylvania has grown prosperous and great, and our peo ple, with rare exceptions, have been satisfied, happy, and proud to have such a republican form of government. In view of the recent crucial and controlling decisions announced by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 1964 (Reynolds v. Sims, etc.), the only avenue of relief open is to amend the Constitution of the United States to provide, as a minimum that any State which has a bicameral legislature may utilize factors other than population in apportioning one house of its legislature, when such plan is approved by a vote of the people; and that any State may determine how gov erning bodies of its subordinate units shall be apportioned, as set forth in the attached resolution. The Congress is urged to take such affirmative action. We have two other senators here from Pennsylvania, Senator Hawbaker and Senator Jack McGregor, who will go into what we have done in the past since 1964 and what our feeling is toward the future. Senator HAWBAKER. I am Senator Hawbaker. I represent Frank lin and Adams Counties in the Senate of Pennsylvania. I have with me some maps I think may be of interest to the committee and perhap others in attendance, and before I begin, I will distribute these map among you. Senator BAYH. Could we have those maps to be included in the record? Senator HAWBAKER. Yes. Senator BAYH. I notice that the second and third maps are in colo which I do not believe the record can pick up. I suggest that the county groupings be listed here, if that proves to be the case so that persons following the record will have a way of knowing these group DA 532 15 60 STATE SENATORIAL DISTRICTS "B" AS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN CIVIL ACTIONS NO. 8293 AND 8338, APRIL 9, 1954 PREPARED BY: The Joint State Government Commission, December, 1964. Map "B," entitled State Senatorial Districts as set forth in the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in civil actions No. 8293 and 8338, April 9, 1964, contains the following groupings: ALLOCATION OF 201 STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO COUNTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE UNITED NOTE: Except where the number of representatives is shown, each county or pair of counties comprising a suggested district, would elect one representative. PREPARED BY: The Joint State Government Commission, December, 1964. Map "C." entitled Allocation of 201 State Representatives to counties as set forth in the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in civil actions No. 8293 and 8338, April 9, 1964, contains the following county groupings: Forest, and Clarion Elk, and Cameron Potter, and Tioga Huntingdon, and Fulton Perry, and Juniata Union, and Snyder Montour, and Columbia Bradford, and Sullivan Susquehanna, and Wyoming The remainder are single county districts. Senator HAWBAKER. I have three different maps which I will discuss separately or in relation to each other. If you have those maps before you, you will notice the one map is black and white and it defines the senatorial districts in Pennsylvania as determined by the 1964 act of the legislature. The second map, which is colored, is State senatorial districts as set forth in the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in civil actions No. 2893 and 8338 on April 9, 1964. The third map depicts legislative districts-this is the house of representatives also as set forth in those same opinions. It is perhaps noteworthy that in Pennsylvania, we have an example of a preview as to what may be expected of the complex of State legislatures with the courts becoming involved. I think this may be of interest to Senator BAYH. Forty-nine from the Pittsburgh area and 53 from the Philadelphia area. Do I read that correctly? Senator HAWBAKER. House of representatives. |