Evening star., 1962-05-13


For example. in Georgia the
three-judge court said a unit
voting system would not be
"invidious" II the difference in
the weight Of individual votes
in various counties were no
greater than the differences in
the United States electoral col
lege. Each State has a vote in
the electoral college equal to
the total Of its Senator's and
Representatives In Congress.
Thus Alaska has three cleo
toral votes and New York State
IS. This figures out to one elec-
toral vote for $4,000 citizens Of
Alaska and one for 5000 cit
izens Of New York.
This standard suggested by
the Federal court in Georgia is
not any final rule affecting leg
islative reapportion ent
throughout the country, how
ever. In fact, the question Of
reasonable" standards is un-
decided.
When and II the big changes
come in apportionment Of State
legislatures, the new political
power Of city and suburbs may
affect the National House Of
Representatives, for State leg
islatures draw congressional
district lines, and city voters
have often complained they are
short-changed by gerryman-
dering. Ha
In Tennessee. where the legal
drive started that led to the
United States Supreme Court
decision Of March 26, Gov. Bu-
ford Ellington (Democrat) has
called the legislature into spe-
cial session, beginning May 20.
He has warned that II 1t does
not reapportion, the Federal
courts may do so.
Fight Promised
Gov. Ellington favors q plan
to allocate House seats on the
basis Of numbers Of qualified
voters and Senate seats by ge-
ography. But hackers Of thor
oughgoing reapportionment say
they win not go for this: that
they will fight 1t out in the
courts.
The most pointed warning
from o court to q State legisla-
ture was issued April IA in Ala
bama, which has not been re-
districted since 1901. A three
Judge Federal court said that If
House and Senate are not reap
portioned before a new legiSla-
ture Is elected In November, the
court win do it.
In some States the reappor-
tionment drive Is not moving |
as fast as hackers had hoped.
In Oklahoma, q Federal court
refused to block a May pri-
mary. thus virtually ruling out
reapportionment before 1868. |
However, the suit will be tried
later, and one of the three
judges on the court served
notice that ''relief will be
granted" in case Of unreason-
able apportionment.
The Idaho Supreme Court
ruled May 8 that a 1851 law
apportioning the State House
of Representatives is constitu-
tional. The law is not perfect,
the judges said, but courts
should not intervene in the ab-
sence of clear violation Of State
or Federal constitutions.
Idaho's constitution requires
that each county have one rep
resentative. The 1851 law pro-
vided that, in addition, each
county would get one repre-
sentative for each additional
Il7.000, or fraction thereof
amounting to 5000.
Enthusiasm Lays
In some cases, city residents
are not so enthusiastic for re-
apportionment as are the bur-
igeoning suburbs. For example,
in Rhode Island, suburbs of
Providence are showing much
more interest than the city,
which lost population between
1850 and 1850.
On the other hand, New
York City has appealed to the
United States Supreme Court
to declare the States system of
apportionment unconstitution-
al. The administration Of May
or Robert F. Wagner, Demo-
crat, says q formula In effect
since 1894 denies the city
proper representation In the
legislature, which Is consistent
ly controlled by Republicans.
i Both the State Senate and
Assembly are apportioned on q
combination Of geography and