The plaintiffs here challenge as unconstitutional the method prescribed by § 178.-820, RSMo (Cum.Supp.1967), V.A.M.S. for the election of trustees of the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City and, supposedly, of all other existing junior college districts in Missouri. This suit is one for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunctions. Plaintiffs are five citizens and taxpayers of the defendant district and of the Kansas City School District; two of them are members of the Board of Trustees of the defendant district. The defendants are the district, its other four members, its Secretary, and the Attorney General of Missouri. Plaintiffs assert: that they fairly represent, as a class, all persons similarly situated in the State of Missouri (including those in other junior college districts) “being chosen so as to fairly insure adequate representation of all;” that the questions raised are of common and general interest to all taxpayers and voters of the Kansas City School District; that the interested persons are too numerous to join; and that the defendants here are representative of all junior college districts in the state, their trustees, and their secretaries. There are eleven junior college districts in Missouri. We recognize plaintiffs as fairly representative of the citizens and taxpayers of the Kansas City School District, but no facts whatever are alleged to justify the conclusion that they fairly represent the citizens and taxpayers of any other junior college district or any part thereof; nor are defendants shown by factual allegations to be representative of the other districts and their officers. Civil Rules 52.09, 52.0S, V.A.M.R. No other plaintiffs or defendants have entered an appearance. We recognize the action as a proper class suit on behalf of the citizens of the Kansas City School District against the named defendants only. Perhaps the resulting distinction is, in this case, more academic than real, but the allegations and claims are too broad.
Section 178.820, about which these issues revolve, is as follows:
“1. In the organization election six trustees shall be elected at large, except that if there are in the proposed junior college district one or more school districts with more than thirty-three and one-third per cent and not more than fifty per cent of the total school enumeration of the proposed district, as determined by the last school enumeration, then each such district shall elect two trustees and the remaining trustees shall be elected at large from the remainder of the proposed district. If any school district has more than fifty per cent and not more than sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the total school enumeration of the proposed district then three trustees shall be elected at large from such school district and three trustees at large from the remainder of the proposed district. If *330any school district has more than sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the total school enumeration of the proposed district then four trustees shall be elected at large from such school district and two trustees elected at large from the remainder of the proposed district. If the trustees are elected at large throughout the entire proposed district, the two receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected for terms of six years each, the two receiving the next greatest number of votes, for terms of four years each, the two receiving the next greatest number of votes, for terms of two years each. If the trustees are elected in any manner other than at large throughout the entire proposed district, then the trustees elected shall determine by lot the two who shall serve for six years, the two who shall serve for four years and the two who shall serve for two years. The period of time between the date of the organization election and the date of the first regular election of the junior college district is considered a full two years in the terms of the directors. Thereafter, all trustees elected shall serve for terms of six years each.
“2. Candidates for the office of trustee shall be citizens of the United States, at least thirty years of age who have been resident taxpayers of the proposed district for at least one whole year preceding the election and if trustees are elected other than at large they shall be resident taxpayers of those election districts for at least one whole year next preceding the election. All candidates for the first board of a district shall file their declarations of candidacy with the state board of education at least thirty days prior to the date of the organization election.”
Plaintiffs seek to apply strictly the “one man, one vote” principle to the election of all trustees of the defendant district (which we shall refer to as the “district”). That district is composed of eight school districts, and includes parts of Jackson, Clay, Cass and Platte Counties, for a total area of about 400 square miles. Since we are dealing only with the pleadings and a stipulation, we are limited in the facts which we may consider. Plaintiffs have,. in their brief, gone somewhat outside the allegations of their first amended petition. A “Stipulation and Statement of Case” filed here under our Rule 82.13 adds little more; it eliminates one pleaded issue, states that the defendant district was organized on June 5, 1964, under Chapter 178, and that it has since maintained a junior college, offering 13th and 14th year courses; it lists in an exhibit the respective enumeration figures. Much of the statement of the case consists of a recital of the controversial legal contentions. It is stated that the latest “school enumeration” of the Kansas City School District was 123,754 and that the total school enumeration of the remaining seven school districts in the defendant district was 84,252. Thus, the enumeration of the Kansas City District is 59.49% of the total. It is also alleged that three trustees were elected from the Kansas City District and three from the remainder of the defendant district. Further allegations of the petition are, in substance: that the trustees exercise legislative and administrative functions, including “the levying of taxes, preparation of an annual budget, establishing of policies and procedures for the government of the district and otherwise functioning as the legislative and policy making body of the district;” that plaintiffs are denied the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, by virtue of the dilution of their votes under the formula of § 178.820, and that this constitutes an invidious discrimination against them and against the other taxpayers and voters of the Kansas City School District; that their representation should be determined by population, and not by school enumeration; that the votes of those voters in the other school districts are weighted “almost two times;” that defendant district is not a body representative of the people of the district, and that plaintiffs’ votes have been “debased.” Plaintiffs pray a declaration that those parts of § 178.820 providing the for*331mula for electing trustees and § 178.840 (which provides more specifically for the details of elections) are unconstitutional and that broad injunctions shall issue, essentially stopping further elections until a proper reapportionment is made, either by legislation or by the court.
Motions to dismiss were filed, one by defendant Anderson separately, and one by the other defendants jointly. These challenged the validity of this suit as a proper class action against other junior college districts, and alleged that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On December 2, 1966, the court entered an order sustaining both motions to dismiss but allowed plaintiffs 10 days to plead further; plaintiffs then filed a “Motion for Rehearing or New Trial” which was overruled. They filed no further amendment. The court thereupon denied leave to plaintiffs to dismiss Count I (the only part involved here) without prejudice, noted that plaintiffs had failed to plead further, and entered final judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition and cause of action with prejudice. Appeal was duly taken.
While we are furnished with rather meager facts, it does appear that the defendant district was organized under Chapter 178, and that the Kansas City School District has, under the statutory formula, elected three of the six trustees. The record further shows, as already indicated, that the Kansas City School District contains 59.49% of the “school enumeration.” That term is described in § 167.011 as a yearly (required) enumeration of all persons in a school district between the ages of six and twenty, resident within the district. The stipulation shows the enumerations of the seven separate school districts other than the Kansas City District; these vary from 2749 to 23,865.
The issue is simply whether our statutory formula contained in § 178.820 is a violation of the equal protection provided by the federal and state constitutions. Plaintiffs argue that their votes are diluted to the extent that the voters in other districts (40.51%) elect one half of the trustees while their own district (59.49%) elects only the other half.
We shall spend no time in reviewing those cases which hold that the districts as apportioned for the election of members of state legislatures must be fixed on a one man, one vote principle, with substantial equality for the votes of all. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed. 2d 506; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colo., 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632. The principle has also been applied to state-wide primary elections. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821, and to the apportionment of congressional districts. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481. We pass those cases for a discussion of others which come closer to our problem.
In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (April 1, 1968), the court held that this requirement was applicable to the election of the members of a County Commissioners Court in Texas. Four members were elected from districts (one by each) and one at large. One district had a population of 67,906; the others 852, 414 and 828. The disproportion was thus enormous. The County Commissioners were found to have these powers: to appoint various officials, let contracts, build roads and bridges, administer welfare funds, supervise and regulate elections, fix the county tax rates, adopt the budget, operate all county institutions, fix the boundaries of school districts, fix the boundaries of its own electoral districts, act as a board of equalization on all county tax assessments, and issue county bonds. The court also had authority to construct and operate an airport and libraries and to control public housing. The Texas Supreme Court held that the existing districts were improperly created, but that other elements besides population could be considered. The opinion of the United States Supreme Court seems to have recognized *332clearly that this body was the “general governing body” of the county, and it quoted from a commentary on the Texas Statutes to that effect. The court stated that the Commissioners Court had both legislative and administrative functions, hut that it could hardly be classified according to “civics textsthat, however, it was representative of “most of the general governing bodies of American cities, counties, towns and villages.” Many facets of its powers and duties were recited to corroborate this conclusion. Specifically, the court held, at 88 S.Ct. 1. c. 1120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1. c. 53, and we quote: “We hold today only that the Constitution permits no substantial variation from equal population in drawing districts for units of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body.” It would, of course, be futile to discuss the three dissenting opinions.
We next discuss the case of Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105, 87 S.Ct. 1549, 18 L.Ed.2d 650; however, we shall begin with the decision of the Three Judge District Court shown at 254 F.Supp. 17, 28. There the members of a 5-member County Board of Education were elected by delegates (one) from each of 39 local school districts in the county. The County Board had the power to transfer local districts (or parts of districts) or essentially to annex and de-annex; it appointed the county superintendent; it levied school taxes, made and adopted the budget, conducted the school census, acted as consultant to the various districts, and conducted special education programs. There were 39 local districts; one of these contained 55.6% of the total county population. The greatest population disparity between districts was approximately 200-1, but each local district elected one delegate to the assembly which, in turn, elected the county board. The majority of the District Court held: that the courts are not required to review the apportionment of every “board and agency of the several states, cities, villages, counties, parishes, townships, metropolitan districts, and all other such policy and decision making bodies which are in existence for the purpose of carrying out the intent of the legislatures which authorize their creation;” that the proper apportionment of such bodies should be left to the action of the legislatures, which are now required to be properly apportioned themselves.
The opinion of the Supreme Court on appeal is shown at 387 U.S. 105, 87 S.Ct. 1549, 18 L.Ed.2d 650. The court noted that the members of the local school boards were elected by the people (concerning which no question was raised) and that these boards, as stated, elected one delegate each to an assembly which elected the county board. As we have already noted, the local districts varied immensely in population (and in the school census). The court reiterated its previous view (Sims, supra) that local political subdivisions and boards are created as convenient agencies to assist in carrying out such of the state functions as may be entrusted to them, and that the extent of their respective powers is a matter resting in the absolute discretion of the state. It further held: that this method of choosing the members of the county board, which it specifically described as of “non-legislative character,” was not offensive to constitutional requirements, and that much in government consists of the “science of experiment” and the exercise of a sound discretion; also, that the county board performed “essentially administrative functions,” which were not legislative “in the classical sense.” While the court certainly considered the method by which the board was selected, the opinion seems, in our view, to be largely founded upon its ruling that the functions of the board were “essentially administrative” and not legislative. We shall refer again to this feature later, as applied to the present case.
The above cases are the only ones of the Supreme Court which really seem at all applicable here. Plaintiffs cite and discuss federal and state cases which apply the requirement of equal protection on *333the one man, one vote theory to city governing bodies. Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, CA 4, 352 F.2d 123; Davis v. Dusch, CA 4, 361 F.2d 495; Thayer v. Garraghan, 279 N.Y.S.2d 441; Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 209 N.E.2d 778; and our own case of Armentrout et al. v. Schooler et al., Mo., 409 S.W.2d 138. We are not concerned here with these cases for they concern only “local legislative bodies exercising general governmental powers at the municipal level” (Seaman, supra). Counsel also cites cases dealing similarly with elections of County or Town Boards of Supervisors. Bianchi et al. v. Griffing, D.C.N.Y., 238 F.Supp. 997; Dyer v. Rich, D.C.Miss., 259 F.Supp. 741; Bailey v. Jones et al., 81 S.D. 617, 139 N.W.2d 385; State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester, 26 Wis.2d 43, 132 N.W.2d 249; Lodico v. Board of Supervisors, D.C.N.Y., 256 F.Supp. 442; Martinolich v. Dean, D.C.Miss., 256 F.Supp.612. These cases were all decided on the theory declared in Avery, namely, that the board, court or body involved was one exercising general governmental functions. The present case is distinguishable upon its facts, even if we were otherwise bound by such decisions. Counsel have also cited four cases which supposedly apply the rule to school board elections. They are: Strickland v. Burns, D.C.Tenn., 256 F.Supp. 824; Meyer v. Campbell, Iowa, 152 N.W.2d 617; Delozier et al. v. Tyrone Area School Board, D.C.Pa., 247 F.Supp. 30; Pitts v. Kunsman, D.C.Pa., 251 F.Supp. 962. In the first place, we are not bound by any of these decisions; in addition, we are not impressed with the logic employed. In Strickland, the majority of the court apparently made no effort to distinguish between school districts and local bodies having general governmental powers and functions, but applied the same broad brush to all; a county school board was involved. In Meyer a county board was again involved; the element of population had been totally disregarded and the districts were specifically based on geographical area or size; moreover, the court there, in our view, misconstrued the opinion in Sailors by considering that it constituted authority for a requirement that in all elections of members of a local public body (if the positions are not appointive) there must be an equal apportionment on a population basis, regardless of the nature and extent of the functions and powers of the body. Delozier again failed to distinguish between the functions of school boards and bodies with general governmental powers. Pitts, supra, merely held that the attempted mode of election ignored a state statute of Pennsylvania. And see 3 Cir., 363 F.2d 841 where the order was stayed in part by the Court of Appeals. All of these four cases, except Meyer, were decided before the decision in Sailors.
A school district, unlike a municipal corporation (city or county) is an instrumentality of the state created for one single purpose and with one single function, — education. State ex rel. Carrollton School Dist. v. Gordon, 231 Mo. 547, 133 S.W. 44; Community Fire Protec. Dist., etc. v. Board of Education, Mo.App., 315 S.W.2d 873. It is truly a special purpose unit of government. In an article by Prof. Jack B. Weinstein in 65 Columbia Law Review 21 (1965) there appears a thorough discussion of the reapportionment decisions as they affect counties and other forms of municipal government. The article was cited in a note to the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan in Avery v. Midland County, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d at loc. cit. 58. The author’s conclusion is that it is doubtful if the one man, one vote principle should be applied to special purpose units of local government which have limited purposes and functions, and that the legislatures should have much freedom in creating such units, whether elective or appointive.
The defendant district may only levy taxes to the extent specifically prescribed by statute, except by a vote of the people; it may not incur indebtedness and issue bonds except by a vote of the people. It provides buildings, hires teachers and em*334ployees generally, makes rules and regulations for governing the students, and administers the business of the 2-year junior college; it may, when necessary, acquire property by condemnation, as most other public bodies may do, including levee districts, fire protection districts and drainage districts. The State Board of Education has supervisory control over the defendant district and all other junior college districts, § 178.780. That Board establishes the “role” of all junior colleges, administers the “state financial support program,” formulates uniform policies on “budgeting, record keeping and student accounting,” establishes entrance requirements and “uniform curricular offerings,” is responsible for all “accreditation,” and it is required to “supervise the junior college districts.” A junior college district, under our plan, has no power to do the multitude of things which a city or a county may do under its broad delegation of powers and its inherent powers.
In this situation we are not bound by any precedent. We hold that the defendant district is essentially an administrative body created by the legislature for the sole and special purpose of conducting a 2-year college institution, and that it is not a “unit of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body.” Avery, supra. We further hold that the district has no substantial legislative functions or powers, a matter which has definitely been considered as meaningful in Sailors, supra, and in Avery at 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d loc. cit. 53, 54. In Sailors the court said, 387 U.S. loc. cit. 110, 87 S.Ct. loc. cit., 1553: “We do not have that question here, as the County Board of Education performs essentially adminsitrative functions; and while they are important, they are not legislative in the classical sense.” It appears to us that the non-legislative character of the board in Sailors was the determining factor. In the present case the legislature and the people have retained all essential legislative powers. It would certainly seem that the true nature and character of a board’s powers would furnish a more substantive test than would the procedure used in its selection, even where some form of election is involved.
We thus hold that the one man, one vote principle does not properly apply to such a body as the defendant district; we further hold that §§ 178.820 and 178.840 are valid both under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and under § 2 of Art. I of the Missouri Constitution. In this view it is immaterial whether the trustees are elected on the basis of population or “school enumeration.” We may note here, however, that the yearly school enumeration does, in all probability, furnish a more accurate guide than does an outdated federal census. We also note, though the matter is not decisive here, the elasticity allowed in § 178.820 to the larger local districts in the election of trustees. The Kansas City District with 59.49% of the school enumeration elects three trustees; if the enumeration exceeds 66⅜% it will elect four. This method is a far cry from the malapportionments shown in the decided cases.
If, as indicated in Sailors, the states should be allowed to “experiment” in their political and governmental processes (387 U.S. loc. cit. 109, 87 S.Ct. 1549), and if much is to be left to the discretion of the states (Sailors, again), we fail to see how the method provided here by the Missouri legislature may be deemed invalid. The judgment dismissing the first amended petition and the cause with prejudice is affirmed.
All concur except SEILER, J., who dissents in separate dissenting opinion filed.