No. 37-70
21.150, RSMo Supp. 1967, which allows the members of the minority party of the House of Representatives to employ one stenographer or secretary for each five members of the minority party is not unconstitutional when tested by the “one man-one vote” principle as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Cite as Mo. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 37-70
GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES:
Section 21.150, RSMo Supp. 1967,
which allows the members of the
minority party of the House of
Representatives to employ one stenographer or secretary for
each five members of the minority party is not unconstitutional
when tested by the "one man-one vote" principle as articulated
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
April 30, 1970
Honorable Les Langsford
Representative, District 141
2311 South Dollison
Springfield, Missouri
65804
Dear Representative Langsford:
OPINION NO. 37
F l L E 0
37
This official opinion is issued in response to your request
for an opinion with respect to the following inquiry:
"As you are no doubt aware, minority members
of the general assembly, by virtue of the
statute in caption, have a rough time in
their attempts to answer mail received from
their constituents .
Surely, the constituents in a legislative
district represented by a member of the
minority party in the Missouri General
Assembly are entitled to the same amount
of secretarial and clerical benefits as do
the constituents in a district represented
by a member of the majority party under the
concept of one man-one vote ruling handed
down by the Supreme Court of the United
States."
The statute to which you refer is Section 21.150, RSMo Supp.
1967, which provides, in part, as follows:
"2.
The members of the minority
party of the house of representatives have
the right to employ one stenographer or
Honorable Les Langsford
secretary for each five members of the
minority party; the minority floor leader
and minority caucus chairman of the house
of representatives each has the right to
employ one additional stenographer or s ec-
retary, and the remainder of the officers
and employees of the house of representa-
tives, except the elective o f ficers there-
of, shall be selected or appointed by the
members of the majority party of the house
of representatives.
The senate or house
of representatives may each by resolution
continue in employment at their regular
salaries not more than fifteen officers or
employees of each body for a period of not
to exceed thirty days and not more than
five officers or employees of each body
for a longer period of time after the sine
die adjournment of the general assembly,
the number of employees and their term of
employment to be fixed in the resolution.
At least one such employee of the house of
representatives and one employee of the
senate shall be selected by the minority
party, of each respective body. "
The validity of this statute is ruled only with respect to
your specific inquiry, which is whether the statute is v iola-
tive of the "one man- one vote" principle articulated by t h e
Supreme Court of the United states.
We hold that the cited
statutory provision is not violative of the "one man-one vote"
principle articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The cases of Baker v . Carr, 369 u.s. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 663,
82 S . Ct . 691 (1962), Reynolds v . Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 12 L . Ed. 2d
506, 84 s.ct. 1362 (1964) and s ucceeding reapportionment c ases,
establish a basic constitutional principle which protect s t h e
right of all qualified citizens to vote and to have their votes
counted and this includes protection from having one's vote
diluted or debased .
The ch allenged statutory provision does
not affect the right of qual ified citizens to vote or to have
their votes counted, does not dilute or debase a person's vote,
and, therefore, does not pres ent a situation which would warrant
application of the "one man- one vote" principle .
-2-
Honorable Les Langsford
CONCLUSION
It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that Sec -
tion 21.150, RSMo Supp. 1967, which allows the members of the
minority party of the House of Representatives to employ one
stenographer or secretary for each five members of the minority
party is not unconstitutional when tested by the "one man-one
vote" principle as articulated by the Supreme Court of the
United States.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was pre-
pared by my assistant, warren K. Morgens.
Yours very truly,
'
A '::J. .. 4;d
~
~
JOHN C. DANFORTH
Attorney General
-3-