(concurring). My dissent in Smith v. Board of Apportionment, 219 Ark. 611, 243 S. W. 2d 755, is a matter of record. I dissented in that case because: (1) this Court, in overruling the work of the Board of Apportionment, was allowing population to be the sole factor in Senatorial Redistricting; and (2) the Supreme Court was refusing to accomplish redistrieting in the case.
The opinion in Smith v. Board of Apportionment was delivered on December 3, 1951. The next day, the Board of Apportionment met; and, in accordance with the opinion of this Court, made an apportionment which gave Pulaski County three (3) Senators. But, in so doing, the Board created some Senatorial Districts composed of Counties that had antagonistic commercial or agricultural interests; and in some instances, Senatorial Districts were composed of Counties that were without adequate transportation accessibility. It was against that December 4th apportionment that the present suit was filed; and in it, the petitioners have offered several other plans for the grouping of Counties into Senatorial Districts.
Finally, this Court in the present opinion, has made an apportionment just as I insisted that this Court should have done in Smith v. Board of Apportionment. The result of this Court’s action is the present opinion, in which the Court — as I see it — has considered the six factors which I mentioned in my dissenting opinion in the Smith case.
At all events, I believe that the Senatorial Districts set up by the present opinion are as fair as can be devised, and are certainly better than any plan that has been heretofore offered. The time for filing for places in the new Senatorial Districts is limited; so I gladly concur with the present majority opinion, in order to settle the uncertainty that has existed.