Preisler v. Kirkpatrick
Supreme Court of Missouri
1DissentPinch, Judge
I respectfully dissent. The principal opinion concludes that Districts 6 and 33 are not compact as required by the Constitution but holds that since in its view the remaining districts are within acceptable limits of compactness, the plan as a whole complies with the compactness requirement established by Art. Ill, § 5, Mo.Const.
I cannot agree with that conclusion. In my view when Art. Ill, .§ 5 says that in establishing the prescribed 34 senatorial districts, “the state shall be divided into convenient districts of contiguous territory, as compact and nearly equal in population as may be,”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Swann v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- State ex rel. Barrett v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Preisler v. DohertySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Preisler v. HearnesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
- In re LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.