JUNE TERM, 1892.* THERON F. GIDDINGS V. ROBERT R. BLACKER, SECRETARY OF STATE. State Legislature-Constitutional law-Rearrangement of Senate 1. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, in a case properly before it, to determine the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature rearranging the Senate districts of the State. 2. The question of the validity of an act of the Legislature rearranging the Senate districts of the State can be raised by mandamus proceedings instituted by a private citizen and elector without a prior application to the Attorney General, where that officer has, in the performance of his official functions as adviser of the State officers, placed himself in an adverse position, which fact is sufficiently evidenced by his appearing for the officer named as respondent in such proceedings; citing People v. State Auditors, 42 Mich. 422. 3. Act No. 183, Laws of 1885, and Act No. 175, Laws of 1891, which attempt to rearrange the Senate districts of this State, are unconstitutional, because of the failure of the Legislature to exercise an honest and fair discretion in apportioning the districts, so as to preserve, as nearly as may be, the equality of representation as required by the Constitution. 4. While the Constitution requires the Legislature to rearrange the Senate districts at the first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of the State made by its authority or by the authority of the United States, each apportionment act remains in force until it is supplanted by a subsequent valid act. Mandamus. Argued June 28, 1892. Granted in part July 28, 1892. *Continued from Vol. 92. Relator applied for mandamus to restrain the respondent from giving notice of the election of Senators under the apportionment act of 1891, and to compel him to give such notice under the act of 1885. The facts are stated in the opinions. Moses Taggart and F. A. Baker, for relator. A. A. Ellis, Attorney General, for respondent. GRANT, J. The Constitution of Michigan contains the following provisions, found in article 4: "SECTION 1. The legislative power is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives. "SEC. 2. The Senate shall consist of thirty-two members. Senators shall be elected for two years, and by single districts. Such districts shall be numbered from one to thirty-two, inclusive, each of which shall choose one Senator. No county shall be divided in the formation of Senate districts, except such county shall be equitably entitled to two or more Senators. "SEC. 4. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants in the year 1854, and every ten years thereafter, and, at the first session after each enumeration so made, and also at the first session after each enumeration by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall rearrange the Senate districts according to the number of white inhabitants, and civilized persons of Indian descent not members of any tribe." * * * Acting under these constitutional provisions, the Legislature passed the senatorial apportionment act, No. 175, Laws of 1891. By the census of 1890 the population was 2,093,889. The ratio of each district would therefore be 65,434. Eight of the districts under this act contain populations as follows: Seventh, 91,420; tenth, 82,697; fourteenth, 88,678; eighteenth, 86,129; twentieth, 84,694; twenty-fifth, 82,556; twenty-seventh, 97,330; thirty-first, 82,213. These are the eight largest districts. Eight other districts contain populations as follows: Twelfth, 41,245; eleventh, 42,210; sixteenth, 46,626; twenty-second, 42,546; twenty-third, 39,727; twenty-eighth, 43,701; twenty-ninth, 40,033; thirtieth, 53,068. Under this apportionment eight Senators would represent constituencies numbering in all 695,717, while eight other Senators would represent constituencies numbering in all only 349,156. The county of Saginaw is given two Senators, although it contains a population of only 82,273. The twenty-seventh district is composed of nine counties, with a population of 97,330, while the twenty-ninth, with eight counties, five of which adjoin a like number of counties of the twenty-seventh, contains a population of only 40,033. The relator is a citizen and an elector in the seventh district, composed of the counties of Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Branch, with a population of 91,420, and prays for the writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent, the Secretary of State, from giving notice of the election of Sonators under the act of 1891, and to compel him to give notice under the apportionment act of 1885. The petition also contains a prayer for general relief. The basis upon which relief is sought is that the power delegated by the above provisions of the Constitution to rearrange the senatorial districts is limited; that this limitation was wholly disregarded by the act in question, and the act is therefore unconstitutional and void. It appears conceded by the learned Attorney General that the Legislature is not in the exercise of a political and discretionary power when acting under these constitutional provisions, for which it is only amenable to the people, and that this Court has jurisdiction, in a case properly before it, to determine the constitutionality of the act in question. The Constitution of this State provides: "The Supreme Court shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts, and shall have power to issue writs of error, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo war ranto, procedendo, and other original and remedial writs, and to hear and determine the same. In all other cases it shall have appellate jurisdiction only." The general jurisdiction of this Court to determine the constitutionality of legislative enactments is not limited so as to exclude laws involving political rights. The constitution of Wisconsin, in conferring jurisdiction upon its supreme court, is nearly identical in language with the Constitution of this State. The supreme court of Wisconsin has recently most ably and thoroughly discussed and determined the jurisdiction of the court in a case similar in principle and its facts to the present one. State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440 (51 N. W. Rep. 724). The authorities in support of the jurisdiction are there collated, and citations made from them. Were the power conferred upon the Legislature one of absolute discretion, then the express mandate, "shall rearrange according to the number of inhabitants," would be void of any force or meaning, except that it might be regarded as expressive of the opinion of the framers of the Constitution that such method would be equitable and fair. We have no doubt of the jurisdiction of the Court. But it is insisted by the Attorney General that, inasmuch as the relator is a private citizen, having no interest in the matter above every other citizen, he has no standing in court, because, prior to filing his petition, he made no application to the prosecuting attorney of his county, the Attorney General, or other public officer, to apply to this Court for a mandamus touching the matter here at issue. In support of this claim he cites People v. Regents, 4 Mich. 98; People v. Inspectors of State Prison, Id. 187; People v. Green, 29 Id. 121; People v. Supervisors, 38 Id. 423. In People v. Regents the application was to compel the regents to appoint a professor of homopathy in the medical department of the University. The Court expressed its |