## Facts

- Qualified Kansas electors and taxpayers sued state officials responsible for implementing legislative apportionment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- A 1962 Kansas census showed substantial population shifts requiring reapportionment under the Kansas Constitution.
- In 1963 the legislature enacted Senate Bill 440 to reapportion the Kansas Senate based on the 1962 census.
- Due to an enrolling clerical omission, the version of S.B. 440 presented to and signed by the governor failed to place the City of Leawood in any senatorial district, leaving its residents without Senate representation under the enacted text.
- Kansas’s House apportionment statute (G.S. 1961 Supp. 4-103) remained in effect despite changed population data and allegedly produced large population-to-representative disparities among districts.
- The district court held S.B. 440 and the House apportionment statute unconstitutional and void; state officials appealed, urging the court to insert the omitted Leawood language to preserve S.B. 440.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may cure an enrolled, signed apportionment statute’s substantive omission by inserting missing language to reflect apparent legislative intent.
2. Whether the existing House apportionment statute complied with Kansas constitutional requirements for census-based, reasonably equal representation.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment declaring S.B. 440 unconstitutional and void.
- The court refused to insert the omitted language, concluding that supplying essential missing text would be judicial legislation rather than interpretation.
- The court affirmed the judgment declaring the House apportionment statute unconstitutional and void for failure to satisfy Kansas constitutional apportionment requirements in light of population disparities and the current census.
- The court retained jurisdiction to address equitable relief as needed and to allow time for the political branches to enact constitutionally compliant apportionment.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may construe enacted statutory text to effect legislative intent, but they may not supply essential language omitted from an enrolled bill; doing so exceeds judicial power.
- Kansas’s Constitution requires legislative apportionment following the state census and demands good-faith compliance with population-based, substantially equal representation.
- Apportionment statutes that materially depart from constitutional requirements are void, even if invalidation creates administrative or electoral difficulties.
- In apportionment cases, a court may declare invalidity while allowing reasonable time for legislative correction and reserving equitable supervision if necessary.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court invalidated both the 1963 Senate and 1961 House apportionment laws because one excluded a municipality from any Senate district due to an enacted omission the judiciary could not correct, and the other failed to meet state constitutional mandates for current, population-based, substantially equal representation.


Harris v. Shanahan, 387 P.2d 771 (Kan. 1963)