On June 15, 1964, in the case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (84 S Ct 1362,12 L ed 2d 506) the United States supreme court in the majority opinion of Chief Justice Earl V. Warren said (pp 568, 577):
“We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the equal protection clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral State legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. * * *
“By holding that as a Federal constitutional requisite both houses of a State legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, we mean that the equal protection clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly óf equal population as is practicable ” (Emphasis added.)
On June 17, 1964, this Court entered an order directing the commission on legislative apportionment to proceed to adopt a plan for districting and apportionment of the senate and house of representatives in accordance with the constitutional requirements and guidelines provided by the United States supreme court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (84 S Ct 1362, 12 L ed 2d 506); WMCA, Inc., v. Lomenzo, Secretary of State, 377 US 633 (84 S Ct 1418, 12 L ed *2522d 568); Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor, 377 US 656 (84 S Ct 1442, 12 L ed 2d 595); Davis v. Mann, 377 US 678 (84 S Ct 1453, 12 L ed 2d 609); Roman v. Sincock, 377 US 695 (84 S Ct 1462, 12 L ed 2d 620); and Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 US 713 (84 S Ct 1472, 12 L ed 2d 632), decided June 15, 1964, requiring that the districting’ and apportionment of both houses of State legislatures shall be as nearly as practicable on an equal population basis. The commission was allowed until 5 p.m., Friday, June. 19, 1964, to adopt a plan in accordance with said constitutional requirements. The order provided that, “In the event the commission is unable to agree upon a plan, each member of the commission, individually or jointly with other members, may submit additional proposed plans to this Court within the time limit of 12 noon, Saturday, June 20, 1964.”
The Court is now advised that the commission on legislative apportionment did not reach an agreement. Various of its members, jointly and severally, have filed plans with this Court — 3 proposed plans for the districting of the Michigan senate and 4 proposed plans for the districting of the Michigan house of representatives.
Analysis of the senate plans reveals the largest and smallest deviation from the average district of 205,895 to be as follows:
Difference
Between
SENATE Largest
and
Largest Smallest Smallest
Austin-Kleiner 207,094 205,067 2,027
Brucker-Huhtala-LaPorte 216,118 200,121 15,997
Hanna 232,384 160,918 71,466
*253Analysis of tlie plans for the house reveals that the largest and smallest deviation from the average house district of 71,127 under each of the plans is as follows:
Difference
Between
HOUSE Largest
and
Largest Smallest Smallest
Austin-Kleiner 72,200 69,118 3,082
Hanna Plan #15 98,719 50,459 48,260
Original HannaBrucker Plan 101,120 48,395 52,725
Plan #16 98,719 48,395 50,324
This Court, after examining each of the plans, finds as a fact that all plans to some degree, and of manifest necessity, cross or recross county, city or township lines.
The Court also finds as a matter of fact based upon the certification of James M. Hare, secretary of State for the State of Michigan and chief elections official of the State, that ample time exists for holding orderly primary and general elections for the State legislature in the event a plan is ordered placed in effect by Thursday, June 25, 1964.
The Court further finds that 1 plan only constitutes a plan for districting and apportioning the senate and house of representatives in accordance with the constitutional requirements set forth by the United States supreme court on June 15, 1964, requiring districts in both houses to be of equal population as nearly as practicable.
The Court finds that the so-called Austin-Kleiner plan filed May 11,1964, and resubmitted by reference June 20, 1964, purports to be a plan for districting and apportioning of both houses of the Michigan legislature based upon districts containing population as nearly equal as practicable. By such plan *254districts in both the senate and house of representatives are composed of territory containing population as equal as the 1960 Federal decennial census permits. Subject to this controlling objective of substantially equal population, and to the extent it would not be subordinated, districts by such plan are formed as compact, contiguous, and regular in shape, and do follow county, city, and township boundaries as nearly as practicable.
With respect to the minimum percentage of the State’s population capable of electing a majority of the senate — a consideration deemed important by the United States supreme court — the figure is 52.5%.
With respect to the house of representatives, the minimum percentage of the State’s population sufficient to elect a house majority is also over 50%— specifically, 50.6%.
While it is not possible to develop detailed constitutional requirements, there can be no question as to the overriding requirement — ’“districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” The Austin-Kleiner alternate districting and apportionment, filed with this Court on May 11, 1964, most nearly complies with said constitutional requirement.
Therefore, it is ordered that the commission on legislative apportionment be, and it hereby is, directed to adopt and publish forthwith, as provided in section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, the aforesaid AustinKleiner plan, which plan shall be placed in effect for the primary and general elections of 1964 irrespective of whether or not said plan shall be challenged upon the application of an elector pursuant to the final paragraph of said section 6 of article 4.
Considering the limited time which remains for the giving of notices of 1964 legislative elections, no *255motion or application for a stay of this order will be entertained by this Court. Any person deeming himself aggrieved by this order may, for the purposes and requisites of USSC Rules 18, 50, and 51, proceed to move or apply forthwith for a stay pursuant to said Rules, in the same manner as if he had previously and vainly moved or applied to this Court for such stay.
Black, Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, C. J.