Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-11-30
Equality in Virginia


In the Virginia reapportionment case is
an utter and devastating rejection of
the Ubiquitous legislative representation
scheme which the rural-dominated Gen
eral Assembly contrived last March.
Northern VirginianS, who are the most
direct beneficiarieS, have cause for real
jubilation at the result
Consistent with the pattern in re-
lated. cases, the special court in this
instance did not state precisely how the
Legislature must be revised in order to
avoid "invidiouS discrimination" or that
population need be the sole criterion. 1t
made plain, however, and gratifyingly
so, that population should be the central
factor. Further, the court warned that
1t will countenance no undue delay, as
sorting that unless the necessary reforms
are accomplished voluntarily within the
next two months, the court itself will
consider such further orders as may
be required" Accordingly, Governor
Harrison faces the urgent, and, to him
the diStaSteful, choice of appealing the
decision to the United States Supreme
Court or of calling a special session of
the legislature, virtually Immediately, to
enact an equitable revision of its seats.
We hope he chooses the latter course.
Northern Virginia by no means
stands alone in unequal voter represen-
tation. But this fact, as the court ma
Jority held, constitutes mo rational
basis" for the denial of equal voting
rights to the residents of Arlington, Fair
fax and Norfolk-the local jurisdictions
TO which this ruling specifically applies.
And indeed there has been denial Prior
to last March, for example, the populous
and Still-growing Fairfax-Falls Church
region had only ~ per cent of the repre-
Sentation in the House to which it would
be entitled if population governed the
allotment of delegates The so-called
corrective" revision enacted by the Leg
iSlature in fact afforded no more than a
pittance of relief to the residents of
Northern Virginia.
In at least two significant respects,
moreover, the ruling materially distin-
guiSheS the reapportionment issue in
Virginia from that in Maryland.
First, the Maryland Legislature, in
representation, in the House of Dele
gates, largely through an increase in its
total number of seats, This sort Of ap-
proach would not be possible in Virginia
without an amendment to the State
Constitution, which restricts the number
of seats in the House to 100, and, in the
Senate, to 40. Thus, whatever additional
seats may eventually be awarded to GER
tain areas of Virginia would have to be
taken away from other areaS-a require
ment which, if carried out, would inevi-
tably shake the traditional rural control
OF the Legislature. Second, the Federal
court in the Virginia case waved aside
contentious that the basis for the make
up Of the Virginia Senate is analogous to
that of the United States Senate. In the
words of the court, the two houses of
the Virginia Legislature have essentially
"the same relation to the people"-wordS
which suggest that reapportionment
must be accomplished in both houses.
This language should encourage those
Maryland citizens whose efforts to force
a revision of the Maryland Senate have
thus far been thwarted in the State
courts, but who now are seeking re-
dress from the Supreme Court of the
United States
In his minority opinion in the Vir-
ginia case, Judge Hoffman suggests that
the effect of the majority opinion might
tempt those other areas of Virginia,
which are even more unfairly represent
ed than Arlington, Fairfax and Norfolk,
also to initiate litigation. And of course
this is so. Where" Judge Hoffman asks,
sis the stopping point?" The answer, in
our opinion, is quite clear: If the ma
jority opinion stands, the stopping
point" in Virginia will be a reappor-
tionment plan which is reasonably equi-
table to all the voters of the State, and
nothing less.