The Impact of Baker v. Carr in Montana
| Author | Harvey G. Kebschull |
| Published date | 01 September 1964 |
| Date | 01 September 1964 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912964017003103 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
138
The
1963
legislature
gave
control
of
the
executive
branch
and
both
houses
of
the
legislature
to
the
Democrats.
However,
a
coalition
of
Republicans
and
dissident
Democrats
managed
to
wrest
control
of
the
lower
house
from
the
regular
Democrats.
The
upshot
was
stalemate
on
apportionment
in
both
the
regular
and
special
sessions.
The
Federal
Court
then
enjoined
elections
in
1964
under
the
1957
law.
The
Governor
was
faced
with
the
dilemma
of
calling
another
special
session
which
might
complicate
his
bid
for
a
third
term
because
of
the
lower
house’s
composition,
or
being
charged
with
the
onus
of
requiring
five
hundred
names
on
primary
election
ballots
in
every
precinct
in
the
state.
In
February
1964,
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
removed
some
of
the
pressure
by
granting
Washington
a
stay
from
the
District
Court
decision
until
it
had
resolved
questions
relating
to
apportionment
before
it.
The
most
important
question
is,
perhaps,
being
asked
by
Colorado
in
an
appeal
from
Cisco
v.
Love
(219
922).
This
case
concerns
questions
relating
to
states
which
have
initiative
processes
to
effect
reapportionment.
However,
the
Supreme
Court
decision
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
until
June
1964.
The
Wash-
ington
state
supervisor
of
elections
has
stated
that
it
would
be
virtually
impossible
to
draw
up
new
districts
for
the
fall
elections
after
May
31.
Current
speculation,
which
is
buttressed
by
some
precedent,
suggests
that
the
Supreme
Court
will
not
require
election-at-large
in
this
state
if
its
decision
in
Cisco
v.
Love
is
to
uphold,
in
effect,
the
Washington
District
Court.
The
court
would,
it is
suggested,
stay
the
decision
until
after
the
1964
elections,
which
would
allow
the
1957
scheme
to
remain
operative
for
one
more
election.
THE
IMPACT
OF
BAKER
v.
CARR
IN
MONTANA
HARVEY
G.
KEBSCHULL
Montana
State
University
Montana
is
one
of
the
increasingly
few
states
in
which
there
has
been
as
yet
little
direct
impact
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Baker
v.
Carr.
Except
for
passing
a
resolution
calling
for
an
amendment
to
the
United
States
Constitution
to
prohibit
federal
courts
from
hearing
apportionment
cases,
the
state
legislature
has
not
con-
sidered
any
proposals
for
reapportionment
as
a
consequence
of
Baker
v.
Carr.
Al-
though
Governor
Babcock
has
stated
that
he
intends
to
request
legislative
study
and
action,
no
specific
proposals
for
reapportionment
have been
presented
for
considera-
tion.
No
suits
have been
filed
by
individuals
or
organizations
in
either
state
of
federal
courts
challenging
the
present
apportionment;
organizations,
such
as
the
Municipal
League,
which
are
contemplating
court
action
have
apparently
all
decided
to
delay
action
until
the
Supreme
Court
announces
its
decisions
on
the
apportionment
cases
before
it
in
the
spring
of
1964.
The
present
apportionment
of
seats
in
the
two-house
Montana
legislature
is
based
on
a
&dquo;little
federal&dquo;
plan.
The
94
seats
in
the
House
of
Representatives
are
apportioned
according
to
population,
but
each
of
the
56
counties
is
entitled
to
a
minimum
of
one
representative
regardless
of
population.
The
56
Senate
seats
are
apportioned
on
a
basis
of
strict
county
equality,
each
county
having
one
seat.
The
To continue reading
Request your trial