State ex rel. Warson v. Howell

Citations

• 92 Wash. 540
• 159 P. 777

Syllabus

<p>States — Legislative Districts — Apportionments—Constitutionality — Power oe Courts. The failure of the legislature to make legislative reapportionments according to the number of inhabitants, and to make them anew every ten years, as required by Const., art. 2, § 3, is not ground for holding a legislative apportionment unconstitutional, although gross inequalities now exist; since the courts cannot compel the legislature to perform the duty of redistricting the state, and an apportionment lawfully enacted continues in force until superseded by a valid act.</p> <p>Same — Legislative Districts —■ Presumptions — Validity — Inequalities. The presumption of constitutionality attaches to legislative apportionment acts, and facts adduced to show unconstitutionality must be clear and cogent and establish beyond question that the law went entirely beyond limits; it is not sufficient that there are inequalities in the districts, where there were no deficiencies equal to a unit or sufficient to show an intent to ignore the constitution.</p> <p>Statutes — Validity — Legislative Apportionments — Time to Question. A legislative reapportionment act will not be declared unconstitutional after it lias stood uncontradicted for fifteen years and seven legislatures liave been elected under it, since a seasonable attack must be made upon legislation that is to a great extent political and administrative in its nature, involving no individual rights.</p>