Document: 382 U.S. 4 86 S.Ct. 24 15 L.Ed.2d 2 WMCA, INC., et al.v.John P. LOMENZO, Secretary of State New York, al. No. 85. Supreme Court the United States October 11, 1965 Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein, Leonard Sand, Max Gross, Morris Handel and George H. Dwight, for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. Thomas E. Dewey, Joseph Malcolm Bell, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to affirm is granted judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.* 3 today disposes summarily four York reapportionment cases; it retains jurisdiction a fifth, Lomenzo v. Inc., 81, which raises substantial questions similar some those involved in set Hawaii cases. Burns Richardson, 74; Cravalho Abe 74, with respect probable has been noted (86 74). Because these cryptic dispositions risk bewildering legislators courts, let alone other States, I believe fitting elucidate my understanding dispositions, all join on premises herein indicated. need clarification particularly desirable because, through dismissal appeal Rockefeller Orans, 75, affirmance Inc. Lomenzo, 24, this signifies its approval two decisions concerning same apportionment plan, one 75 found acceptable struck down. FORTAS took no part consideration or decision case. 5 Legislature adopted an known as 'Plan A,'1 comply order three-judge District Court, dated July 27, 1964, requiring enact 'a valid scheme that compliance XIV Amendment Constitution shall be implemented effect election Members at November, 1965, so elected hold office term year ending December 31, 1966.'2 6 In D.C., 238 F.Supp. 916, court Plan A satisfied order; doing rejected contentions apportioning basis citizen population violates Federal Constitution, partisan 'gerrymandering' may subject federal constitutional attack under Fourteenth Amendment. affirming decision, necessarily affirms eminently correct principles. 7 Quite evidently was seen by also viewed but temporary measure. holding plan federally purpose electing special 1966 Legislature, explicitly abstained from dealing challenges Constitution. Judge Waterman although met requirements, 'Of course, ultimate fitness their needs purposes people themselves, decide, not mandate.' F.Supp., 927. 8 Subsequent below Appeals held (as well Plans B, C, D) unconstitutional matter state law.3 now dismissing lack question (Rockefeller 75) insofar bear upon any effective after expiration take asserting final must comport requirements.4 So much disposition without reservation. dismissing, more, remaining appeal, simply reflecting affirmances 49 90, whereby puts stamp Court's use A, though invalid acquiesce aspect because factors advert below. 9 appeals, Travia 49, Screvane May specifically ordered November had already declared violation Constitution.5 On June 1, denied stay accelerate 381 431, 85 1582. dissent highest surely presented issues far-reaching importance smooth functioning our system, were deserving plenary Court. would have accelerated action denying sought further application such made me during summer. Memorandum Harlan, 16, 7. affirmance6 can see satisfactory way heal, juncture, wounds federal-state relations caused inflicting even greater ones. 10 upshot what done is, then, suspend York's 150-member provision one-year duration result subscribe only compulsion gone before * This opinion applies 49; Rockefeller, Governor Orans al., 75; 90. Laws c. 976. passed three successive amendments 976: cc. 977-978 ('Plan B'), 979 C'), 981 '(Plan D'). constitutional, D did meet requirements Amendment, interpreted Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 633, 1418. retaining determinations, 81. Civil 61-1559, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 246 953. affirmed Hughes W.M.C.A., 379 694, 713, 13 698, Clark dissenting. re N.Y.2d 339, 258 N.Y.S.2d 825, 206 N.E.2d 854. Art. III, § 2, states, 'The assembly consist hundred fifty members.' All plans provided larger assemblies: 165 assemblymen, 976, 301; 180 977, 186 assemblymen (having total votes), 979, D, 174 150 981, 301. approves Appeals' standpoint law requirement integral invalidated 1418, 12 568. oral form. written handed down 13, 953, embodying order. merits unavoidable. brought here 28 U.S.C. 1253 (1964 ed.), do case, fortiori cases presently moot. Surely if erred ordering power, example, enjoin arrange yet another appropriate relief. very great difficulties implicit affording relief late stage go desirability, mootness underlying action.

Category: 1