Legislative counsel bureau reports, sample apportionments, county populations and final apportionment for legislative reapportionment, 1965

( ( \ M E M O R A N D U M C O N C ER NI NG RE-APPORT IONMENT OF A S SE MB LY This m e m o r a n d u m ?is intended to s u p p le me nt the i n f o r m a ?tion pr eviously f u rn is he d on this subject and reflects the c o n ?si derable throught and statistical analysis wh i c h we have done since. Included with this m e m o r a n d u m is a table of po s s i b l e r e ?apportionment. ?. ?**? No. 1 A n a l y s i s o f Table of P o ss ib le R e - A p p o r t i o n m e n t . <- * . % 9 l ) t The first two col'?mns list the c o un ti es a n d theif I960 po pu la ti on in the order of size. The third column Vis?-s ttie num- * ber of as se m b l y m e n which each coujity p r es en tl y has. The Ne vada state constitution, Article~IV, Se ct io n 5, states that the s e na te shall consist of one se na to r fr o m each co unty and the a s s e m b l y " c a n ?not be less than double the nu mber of sena to rs no mo re than tr ip le the number of senators. Therefore, the co ns ti tu ti on al limitations of the number of a s s e m b l y m e n are from 3*t to 51. These are i n d i c a t ?ed by the pe n n e d - i n lines on the table. tn The fo urth column on the table indicates the nu mb er of a s s e mb ly me n and their a p p o r t i o n m e n t among the counties if there w e r e al lo we d one a s s e m b l y m a n for every 12,000 people, wi th a m i n ?imum of one as se m b l y m a n per county. The state c o n s t i t u t i o n requires that there be at least one a s s e m b l y m a n from each county. As can be seen, this a p p o r t i o n m e n t w o u l d only yield 33 a s s e m b l y m e n wh ic h is insufficient un d e r the c o n s t i t u t i o n requirements. Therefore, it is ne cessary to start with a somewhat lesser am ount and the b r e a k i n g point is 11,923 which is the po p u l a t i o n of El ko County. This b r e a k ?down can be seen in the fifth column in which Elko Co unty is a l l o w ?ed an additional a s s e m b l y m a n m a k i n g a m i n i m u m total of 3^. T h e f o l ?lowing columns sh ow each of the gains as the number of a s s e m b l y m e n are increased by us in g sm al le r po pu la ti on fi gures as the diviser. O r i g i n a l l y in our first m e m o r a n d u m we felt that the o p t i ?m u m number was 38, in wh ic h case the p o p u l a t i o n wo ul d be d i v i d e d by 10,000. A f t e r vi ew in g the chart we have revised our o p i n i o n and feel that a be tter number wo u l d be 46 in that this wo u l d give Wh i t e Pine and Churchill c o un ti es each an additional as se mb ly ma n. F i g u r i n g the senators representing c o un ti es w h i c h lost as se mb ly me n w o u l d all vo te against the m e a s u r e there w o u l d d e f i n ?itely be 7 senators op po se d to this, Elko, W h i t e Pine, Mineral, Lyon, Humboldt, Nye and Lincoln. This is a fa ir ly close m a r g i n co ns id er in g that these sena to rs would be liable to get some s y m ?pathy votes fr o m some of the ot he r small c o un ti es that do not have changes a f f e c t i n g them. The small counties, of course, have a c o m ?mu nity of interest which is v e r y similar and there is a d e f i n i t e al 1 iance. ) ) It was then our suggestion that there would be the p o s ?sibility of including Mineral and Lyon Coun ti es with an a d d i t i o n ?al a s s e m b l y m a n as indicated in the last column. As can be seen the mathem at ic al basis does not w o r k out in that if one assembly-man is a l lo we d for each 6,000 people, with a m i n i m u m of one to each county there were wo ul d be 56 as semblymen. We then c o n s i d ?er ed the p o s s i b i l i t y of just arbi tr ar il y ad ding one a s s e mb ly ma n to each of Mineral and Lyon Counties and taking one away from each of Clark and Wa sh oe Counties in the co lumn with the di visor of 6600, w h i c h wo u l d provide for the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y required 51 members. The ration be tw ee n Clark and W a s h o e counties to the small coun ti es wo u l d then be 30 to 21, a se pa ra ti on of 9 votes wh i c h mi gh t be too much to get it vo te d into effect by the exist?ing Legislature. A n o t h e r alte rn at iv e was co n s i d e r e d and that is to ma ke the division point at 8,000 wi t h a 46 man Legislature. S i m i l a r ?ly we could take one vote away fr om both Cl a r k and Wa shoe c o u n t ?ies and add one vo te to Mineral and Lyon C o un ti es and ar rive at the 46 figure. This would have the ad vantage of giving Clark county 6 new legislators, keeping W a s h o e County the same, and having only a 4 vo te spread be tw ee n the small counties and Clark and Wa s h o e County, 25 to 21. A fu r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n was suggested. This wo u l d be to leave the ap po rt io nm en t as it appears in the 8,000 column but to m e r e l y add two mo re as se m b l y m e n ma ki ng a total of eight and g i v ?ing one of these to Mineral and one to Lyon county. This wo u l d c e r t a i n l y meet with more favor in both Clark and W a sh oe Counties. However, it w o u l d be mo re m a t h e m a t i c a l l y co rr ec t and wo u l d still give this added ad vantage to the small counties. It wo ul d increase the spread be tween the small counties and Cl a r k and W a s h o e County to six votes, 27 to 21. However, six votes on ly means a shift in vo te of three individuals. Quite p r ob ab ly the small counties w o u l d feel co nfident that there would be en o u g h s t a t e s m e n - 1 ike individuals among the larger counties to prevent passage of d i s ?c r i m i n a t o r y or u n d e s i r a b l e legislation from their standpoint. At the present sitting we are inclined to th in k that this is the best solution. No. 2. LEGAL A S P E C T S . The law on the subject can be su c c i n c t l y summarized as follows: 1. In the event the L e g i sl at ur e refuses to act in any m a n n e r , u p o n the re -a pp or ti on men t as required by the co ns ti tu ti on a court p r o c e d u r e cannot be initiated to compel the Le gi sl at ur e to do so. The only possible remedy, a Wr it of Mandamus, is c l e a r ?ly held not to lie against a Le gi sl at iv e body or its officers to compel p e r f o r m a n c e of duties clearly legislative in their character. -2- ( ( In the leading case on this subject of John B. Fergus v. A d o l p h Marks, et al, m e mb er s of general assembly, 321 111.510, 152 N.E. 557, 46 A.L.R. 960, it is s t at ed in ve ry si m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s to the one pr e s e n t l y be fore the State of Ne vada that the ? du t y to re -apportion the state is a specific le gi sl at iv e duty i m p o s ?ed by the co ns t i t u t i o n so lely upon the legislative d e p a r t m e n t of the state, and it alone is responsible to the people for f a i l u r e to p e rf or m that dity". It is interesting to note that the n e w A l as ka state co ns t i t u t i o n p r ov id es s p e c i f i c a l l y for court e n ?forcement of this re-a pp or ti on men t duty. This would be the on ly way that a court to force the legislature to act in re -a pp or ti on m e n t . 2. In the event that the L e g i s l a t u r e does pass an Act of Re -A p p o r t i o n m e n t then that act is subject to review of the courts as in the case of any other legislative act. The act it?self can be de c l a r e d u n c o ns ti tu ti ona l, in which case the st at e wo u l d be left to its prior apport io nm en t. O b v i o u s l y d e c l a r i n g such an act to be un co ns ti tu ti ona l from a practical st a n d p o i n t in this case wo u l d be detrimental to the Clark county p o p u l a t i o n and 1 would not an t i c i p a t e such a remedy w o u l d be utilized. It is interesting to note, however, that the standard by wh ic h the courts do refuse such a re-a pp or ti on men t act is not a strict mathematical one and t h e r e f o r e if the act we re reviewed by the small coun ti es or any other pe rs on the s u g g es ti on of the 48 n u m ?ber legislature with its ma th em at ic al inexactitude w o u l d p r o b a b l y not be o v e r t u r n e d by the courts. A leading case in this regard is Ba ir d v. Kings C o u n t y 138 N.Y. 33, N.E. 827 it is stated, "W hile it is impossible, in the nature of the case to a c c u r a t e l y de s c r i b e and cl o s e l y limit the amount of de vi a t i o n fr om an equal repr es en ta ti on that the practical w o r k i n g s of the c o n s t i t u t i o n may in this respect p e r ?mit, it is, on the other hand sometimes qu it e poss ib le to say of a pa rt ic ul ar ex a m p l e that it does or does not vi o l a t e the c o n s t i ?tutional mandate. W a have no trouble w h a t e v e r in d e t e c t i n g the d i f f er en ce b e tw ee n noon and midnight; but the exact line of s e p a r ?ation be tween the dusk of the e v en in g and the darkness of a d v a n c ?ing night is not so ea si ly dr aw n ...a de v i a t i o n from e q u a l i t y of popu la ti on in the d i vi si on of a county into a s se mb ly d i s t r i c t s in order to be held u n c o ns ti tu ti ona l, must be grave, p a l p a p l e and u n r e a s o n a b l e deviation, such that, wh en the facts are p r e ?sented, argu me nt will not be n e ce ss ar y to c o nv in ce a fair m a n that very great and wh o l l y u n n e c e s s a r y inequality has been in t e n ?tionally pr o v i d e d for." See An n o t a t i o n in 2 A.L.R. 2d 13^7. No. 3. PRAC TI CA L A S P E C T S . The practical as p e c t s to be c o n s i d e r e d and w e i g h e d against -3- ) ) each other in d e t e rm in in g a w o r k a b l e fo rm ul a are as follows: 1. The small coun ti es p r es en tl y control both the assembly and the senate and a scheme of re -a pp or ti on men t must not impose too great a ha r d s h i p upon the small counties in the reduction of their as semblymen. 2. The ulti ma te ratio of small counties to Clark and W a s h o e coun ti es must not provide for too great a separation of votes between the two. A six vote se paration is probably not too great an obstacle, naturally a four vote di f f e r e n c e would ma ke them mu ch happier. 3. Co ns i d e r a t i o n must be given to the fact that a number of a s s e m b l y m e n will be vo ti ng themselves out of office and will put pres su re on their senators to defeat such a measure. The number of people v o t e d out of of fice should ther ef or e be kept as low as possible. k. The Las Vegas p e op le are p r es si ng very hard to have fair repres en ta ti on in the lower house. In the event that re?ap po r t i o n m e n t is not ma de or not fairly m a d e i do not a n t i ci pa te that the m a t t e r would be taken to the courts since this wo u l d be ineffectual. As pointed out in previous d i s c us si on s it is mu ch mo re likely that initiative petitions wo ul d be ci rc ul at ed to form a unicameral legislature, to adopt a re -a pp or ti on men t act, or to re?a p po rt io n the asse mb ly and to re-district the senate such as was done in California. This is the great threat that Clark County has in getting a re-apportionment through the legislature. 5. Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given to the v i e w that the as s e m b l y should be kept small and should not be increased to 51. An increase of one as se mb ly ma n might pr o b a b l y be ac c e p t a b l e and wo u l d al so have the psychological appeal that the asse mb ly is not being de cr e a s e d but increased. 6. In our opinion it is vital that advance wo r k be done on this and that the newspapers be a p pr is ed of this fo rm ul a of re-apportionment. If the ne ws pa pe rs will push a w o rk ab le plan of re -a pportionment prior to the me e t i n g of the a s s e m b l y , p e r h a p s the onus could be put upon those a s s e m b l y m e n who wo u l d be legislating and lobbying for their jobs. It might then be an u n p o p u l a r cause to refuse to re-apportion. - k - TABLE OF rO S S ? L E REAFFORTlOMKENT OF rfCYADA ASSEMBLY 111 a c c o rd a n c e w i t h i9 6 0 Cenava? W tW T IIS I9 6 0 POPULATION E X IS T IN G LEGISLATURE 1 2 , 0 0 0 ___ 1 1 , 2 2 1 - .....U .S O O C LA M 1 2 4 , 7 8 2 9 11 11 11 WASHOE 82,46% 10 7 7 8 ELEO 1 1 , 9 2 3 4 l 2 2 WHITE P l M 9 , 7 2 1 4 ' i 1 1 CHURCHILL 8 , 3 9 7 2 1 1 1 ORMSBY 8 , 0 5 7 2 1 j 1 1 MINERAL 6 , 2 4 6 2 1 1 1 LYON 6 , 0 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 HUMBOLBT 5 , 6 8 6 2 i 1 1 1 NYE 4 , 3 3 6 2 > ! 1 1 DOUGLAS 3 M l 1 1 i 1 1 PERSHING 3 , 1 6 8 1 l 1 1 LINCOLN 2 , 4 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 LANBER 1 , 5 6 0 1 1 1 1 EUREKA 754 ? l 1 1 ESMERALDA 616 1 1 1 1 STOREY 567 1 1 1 1 TOTAL: 2 8 0 ,2 4 1 47 33 34 V * * CONSTITUTIONAL L IM IT S | t t T x r o r c a i K ' T t f h e - ------------ M A lH iE R OF STATE 9 -3 8 1 1 -2 3 1 1 - 2 4 t a m W O T T V3BHGE T8 REMAINDER OF STATE 1 9 -2 8 1 8 -1 6 1 9 -1 6 L m u ' * # 14 16 1 16 18 19 20 21 ? 9 10 11 11 12 11 11 14 ! S s 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1t 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 1 2 2 2 2 i i I 1 2 1 1 1 2 i 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 i 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 I l 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I ? i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 **s. I ? ..... 1 1 1 l I 1 46 49 49 51 ?m* \?d ? L % n 1 2 = 2 5 ----- LfclZ_____ U s l L if ci l_____ U t i l 56 Q-16 12-16 24-17 25*21 10-19 J2-19 V q JI/y c '&wvj cvvvA V j u ^ n, SUGGESTED PROVISIONS FOR AN EQUABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF COUNTIES WITH UNUSUALLY LARGE POPULATIONS (1) In keeping with Section 13 of Article XV of the Constitution of the Scate of Nevada, the populations of the several counties shall be determined by the results of the decennial census taken under the direction of the Congress of the United States and any interim census which the Legislature of the State of Nevada may deem necessary to have taken. ? This section specifies what population figures are to be used in connection with apportionment changes in the Legislature. Comment,: Further provisions should be enacted which would provide for the probability that at some future date the Federal census may be taken every 5 years, and the probability that a special census might be taken between decennial years. The first of these possibilities is receiving attention now and the second is an actuality where special census pro-grams have been carried out as for the State of New York. Special Fed?eral census have been held recently for both Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. (2) Mandatory adjustment of the representation in the assembly is contained in Section 5 of Article IM of the Constitution by amendment. The reapportionment of the assembly shall be made at the first session subsequent to a Federal decennial census. A further provision of this Section states again that the members of the assembly shall be apportioned on the basis of population. Comment: However, no system is provided for in this Section, the implication being that some reference to population be considered in reapportionments. There are 5 major systems of representing populations in a legislative body: namely, The Method of Smallest Divisors, The Method of Harmonic Mean, The Method of Equal Proportions, The Method of Greatest Divisors, The Method of Major Fractions. Some reference to what system is to be used is necessary. ?S2Dl?!lL? Just how mandatory the provision is remains a question. Should the assembly refuse to reapportion how would the provision be accomplished? Also the assembly might rightly decide that population changes were too small to warrant any considerations for a change. However, there would exist a strong moral implication that the assembly abide by the provision. Should they fail to heed the mandatory provision the voters' only recourse would be to elect those who are known to favor the adjustment. C^mmentj The Legislative Commission could be given the authority to reappor?tion should the legislature fail to carry out the reapportionment provision. The State of Washington has recently provided that two legislative committee chairmen, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the lieutenant governor, act in this capacity should the legislature fail to act. Cgrggen^: Provision is made in this Section that the reapportionment be dealt with at the first session of the assembly after the taking of the decennial census. Such a session might not be able to comply with this provision since the results of the census might not be known at that session. A lag of a year or more after the taking of the census is common before the final results broken down by countyare known. The possibility of annual sessions would increase the possibility of an assembly session not being able to comply. The following provision would eliminate this conflict: Reapportionment shall be made at the first session of the assembly following the Official and Final Federal Government release by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, relative to the population of the State of Nevada by counties. (3) The amendment to Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution also places a limit on the size of the assembly which is provided for as follows. The senate shall consist of one senator from each of the 17 counties. The number of senators shall not be less than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of that of the members of the assembly. This provision places the membership of the assembly in relation to the 17 senators at a minimum of and a insjtJmum of 51. Section 6 of Article XV provides that in no case shall the aggregate number of senators and assemblymen exceed 75 members. However, unless the number of counties in Nevada was increased from the present number of 17, the highest aggregate number of legislators that could exist would be 63 by addition of the maximum of 51 assemblymen and 17 senators Comment : In the interests of efficient and economical government there should be no unnecessary attempt to reach any maximums set by the Constitution. The workings of the assembly and the salary expenses should receive maximum considerations with a view toward a relatively small assembly. The political reluctance of assembly members reducing their own number of seats is of course recognized. However, the number of seats in the assembly were reduced in 1927 to 37 and this number remained In effect until 1931. As recently as 1915 the senate has consisted of 22 members and subsequently reduced to 17. (*0 The suggested provisions for a reapportionment of the assembly given in this study are based on THE METHOD OF EQUAL PROPORTIONS which is the method em?ployed in determining the apportionment of the United States House of Representa?tives. Among the five methods which may be employed this method is the only one which gives a true representation without distortion in favor of large or small populations. (5) Employing The Method of Equal Proportions as a method of apportioning seats in the assembly among the several counties in Nevada brings about a special political consideration. If the present number of k~j seats are so apportioned, two of the counties of the state will command a substantial majority in the assembly. The reason for this is simple. Clark and Washoe counties combined contain 72% of the population of the State as of 1957 and chart #1 shows that their growth may be expected to assure them an even greater percentage of the population in the near future. As recently as 19^0 these two counties contained less than half of the State's population. If The Method of Equal Proportions is a basis for apportion?ment of a large number of seats the results are obviously politically unacceptable and some modification of the method must be sought to accommodate the unusual situ?ation found among Nevada's counties with respect to two counties dominating the remaining 15. Theoretically this domination is balanced in the Senate where the 15 smaller counties have a vast majority over Clark and \7ashoe counties. However, it would be difficult to picture the assembly throwing the balance to these "super" counties on the basis of strict population representation under any method which might be suggested. The following provisions are specifically designed to resolve - 2 - this peculiar problem and still have a mathmatically sound and fair representation. The Method of Equal Proportions may be employed' without modification to cover an initial number of 30 seats in the assembly without the small counties losing a majority. The number 30 is the largest number that can be considered for the method in view of the fact that one-half that number exactly coincides with the number of small counties (15). The balancing number of 15 seats would automatic?ally fall to the two large counties under the apportionment method because of their dominating population. Since every county must have at least one assemblyman, the 15 seats allotted to the small counties would have to fall one to each county on an equal basis. The following provision could be employed to effect this found?ational apportionment in the assembly and the table shows how the seats would be apportioned among the counties employing the Method of Equal Proportions based on 1957 population. Provision: Whenever any two counties of the State with the highest population totals shall contain collectively more than half of the total population of the State, The Method of Equal Proportions shall be employed to determine the apportionment of a basic number of 30 assemblymen. This would effect an apportionment under current populations for the counties as follows. POWER BALANCE 15 15 COUNTY SEATS RATIO POPULATION (1 Clark....... 12,833 115,500 Washoe...... .... 6 12,667 76,000 El ko.... .... 14,100 14,100 ?White Pine,.. 10,300 10,300 Mineral..... 8,800 8,000 Churchi11..,, 8,000 8,000 Ormsby...... 6,100 6,100 Humboldt.... 5,600 5,600 Lyon........ 5,000 5,000 Lincoln..... 4,000 4,000 Pershina.... 3,900 3,900 Nye......... 3,200 3,200 Douglas..... 2,400 2,400 Lander....... 2,100 2,100 Eureka...... 800 800 Storey...... 700 700 Esmeralda.... 500 500 TOTAL... 267,000 ?Comment: The representation ratio shown in the table denotes how many people are represented by each assemblyman. Employment of the Method of Equal Proportions entails a complex "matching" of one county with any other which appears to have an over representation (low ratio number). If by dividing the ratios of representation between two counties and then finding that by changing their apportionment by subtracting from one and adding to another a smaller percentage of difference can be obtained, then the switch in seats is effected. If the percentage obtained is larger then no change is made. The smaller the representative ratio number, the greater the probability that the county may have to give up a seat. The higher a representative ratio number the more apt a county is to receive an additional seat. It will be noted that in the above table the ratio or representation between Clark and Washoe counties is extremely close and no change of seats between them could effect a smaller percentage of ratio representation differential Comment: It is interesting to note that no matter how large any two largest counties grew they could never command a majority of this basic group of 30 * * Formula for The Method of Equal Proportions and discussion of other methods may be found in Harvard Law Review. June, 1929, pp, 1015-1047. - 3 - since at least 15 of the assembly seats must be given to the small county group. Comyent^: It is further evident that any change in apportionment within this basic number of 30 assembly seats will only effect a change of seats between the two largest counties. There can be none added to their combined total of 15, they only exchange between themselves. Comment; It is conceivably possible that a tremendous growth of population in one of the smaller counties might at some future date result in the appor?tioning of an assembly seat to one of the group of 15 smaller counties from the 15 seats held by the two largest counties. This possibility should not be entirely discounted and in such event the transfer should be made to maintain a proper representation. It is unlikely that this would happen since the growth or any third county would probably be offset by substantial increases in the two largest counties, continuing to hold for them their 15 seats, under the Method of Equal Proportions. It is fundamental to any equality and equable apportionment of the assembly to maintain this initial balance among the 30 assembly seats. CHART #1 ? (1957 POPULATION) Comment; This table shows the percentage of concentration of the population of the State of Nevada in the two counties with the largest population; i.e., Clark and Washoe. i PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STATE POPULATION CONCENTRATED IN CLARK 5- WASHOE COUNTIES 35% 125.3% 19 Vo 1920 1930 1940 1950.. i960 (6) The initial apportioning of 30 assembly seats is a foundation which is added to in order to bring the membership of the assembly to a reasonable size and to provide for a majority control by the smaller and more numerous counties. This will be discussed in the next section. In the initial apportionment of 30 assembly seats we have a problem which may arise when either of the two largest h - counties of the State might attain such population size as to result in Its capt- . uring a very large share of the 15 seats to be divided between them. One of the large counties would thus restrict the number of assembly seats awarded to the other and a point would be approached where the second largest county of the State might not have much more of a representation than one of the small group of 15 when addi?tional seats are added to that smaller group. This would effect an inequity in the apportionment which would be politically unacceptable and justly so. A rather sim?ple provision may be employed to limit the assembly seats of any county having such a tremendous population and at the same time assure that the smaller of the two largest counties would be rightfully protected. Provi sion: It shall be further provided that no one county of the State shall contain over 1/3 of the initial basic group of 30 assembly seats and any excess apportionment that might be awarded to such county under the Method of Equal Pro?portions shall be distributed among the remaining 16 counties. Comment: This provision will assure the protection of the smaller of the two largest counties with reference to a maximum of 10 seats for the largest county. It is fundamental to political considerations that no one county by itself should control over 1/3 of the initially apportioned seats of the assembly. Comment: Although the provision allows for the distribution of the extra seat among the remaining 16 counties it would in effect be awarded to the smaller of the two largest counties. This is evident since these two large counties are basicly under-represented in relation to the small group, and the under?representation will continue to increase as they grow larger. We have here a balance to protect the large counties from each other as well as protecting the small counties from them. (7) Additional assembly seats would be apportioned among the 17 counties under either of two slightly different proposed methods. These methods both employ the assigning of a number of seats to the largest two counties and a number to the remaining small county group of 15. After the number of seats have been assigned to the two groups the distribution of assembly seats again employs The Method of Equal Proportions. Both proposed methods are identical in principal, they differ only in the number of seats to be considered when additions are made to the basic number of 30 seats. The two provisions are given here and the accompanying tables show how the seats would be apportioned among the counties on the basis of 1957 population figures. Provision # 1 : Additional assembly seats shall be apportioned among the 17 counties, 3 seats at a time with a distribution of 1 seat to the two largest counties and 2 seats to the group of 15 smaller counties. The distribution between each group shall employ The Method of Equal Proportions considering the entire allotment of seats among the group. Provision # 2 : Additional assembly seats shall be apportioned among the 17 counties, 5 seats at a time with a distribution of 2 seats to the two largest counties and 3 seats to the group of 15 smaller counties. The distribution within each group shall employ The Method of Equal Proportions considering the entire allotment of seats among the group. Comment: Under the apportionment by provision #1, the membership of the assembly could be any of the following numbers between the minimum and maximum numbers set by the Constitutional Amendment, (36-39-^2-^5-48-51). Under the apportionment by provision #2 the membership of the assembly could be any of the following numbers, (35-^0-?i-5 ?50). " o Comment: Apportionments of either 3 or 5 seats at a time, as set forth in the above provisions, are the only small numbers which can be considered which will work toward the gradual spread between the large county group and the small county group to attain the politically desirable situation where the small counties enjoy a practical majority in the assembly. If the numbers (2-^-6) are employed it is not possible to equably bring this situation into reality. Any numbers above these small ones become unwieldly or are multiples of the two used. (8) A continuance of the 1/3 rule should again be considered as was provided for under the basic 30 seat apportioning of assembly seats. This is again necessary for the same reasoning that eventually a county with very large population could dominate over the second largest county in population to a point where the second largest county would approach an apportionment only slightly more than one of the small county group of 15. Prov?s ?o n : It shall be further provided that no one county of the State shall contain over 1/3 of the seats of the assembly under any numbers which are added to the basic group of 30 seats. When such a point shall be reached by any one county the excess seat shall be distributed among the remaining 36 count?ies employing The Method of Equal Proportions. Comment; In practical effect, although the provision mentions a distribution among the remaining 16 counties, the seat will automatically fall to the smaller of the two largest counties since these counties are very highly under-represented, especially as they pass the basic apportionment of 30 seats. We have again a balance to protect the large counties from each other by simple application of the 1/3 principle. (9) A further application of the 1/3 rule will be necessary to protect the small counties from each other and to also protect one of their group from attain?ing such an apportionment that it would surpass the smaller of the two large counties. Provision: It shall be further provided that regardless of the size of the assembly no one county of the small group of 15 counties shall contain over 1/3 of the basic number of 15 seats which they have among them under the original apportioning of 30 assembly seats. Should the apportionment of 15 seats to them rise to a higher number under a consideration of the 30 seat initial apportionment, then no county shall contain over 1/3 of that number. These provisions shall apply at all times regardless of how many seats the small group may attain under the provisions for adding seats to groups by the 1+2 or 2+3 method. Comment^; In practical application this will limit the apportionment of any county in the small group to a maximum of 5 assembly seats regardless of how large the assembly is. The only way a small county could increase its maximum number of seats past the limit of 5 would be by attaining a very large population growth which would enable that county to garner enough seats from - 6 - the two largest counties under the initial 30 seat apportionment, for the smalt county group. Even at that it would have to take 3 seats from the two large counties to attain a small county group apportionment of 18 in order to have for itself a maximum seat