# Stevens v. Faubus

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 12, 1962 · 234 Ark. 826

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762641

## Case

- **Full name:** Stevens v. Faubus, Governor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 12, 1962
- **Citations:** 234 Ark. 826; 354 S.W.2d 707; 1962 Ark. LEXIS 771
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** Bohlinger, Smith, Ward, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762641

## Opinion text

George Bose Smith, J., concurring. I concur only to point out that the Quotient Assignment Table contained in one of the dissenting opinions is not a new method of apportionment. It is simply the method of smallest divisors, which was considered and rejected in the Shaw case.
The Quotient Assignment Table is arrived at by dividing the population of the larger counties first by one, then by two, then by three, and so on. It will be seen by reference to the table constituting Footnote 12 to the Shaw opinion that this is the exact formula for apportionment by the method known as that of the smallest divisors. The only difference, one purely of form, is that in the Shorn table the populations are multiplied by the reciprocals (as fully explained in Footnote 7 of the Shaw opinion) of the numbers that would be used as divisors. For instance, the Shaw table first multiplies by .5, which of course is the same thing as dividing by two. Thus the two methods are actually identical.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762641. Public record. Not legal advice.