Case Name: In the Matter of Martin Wolpoff et al., Respondents, v. Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Saul Weprin, Individually and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly, et al., Appellants; In the Matter of Reeves Dixon et al., Respondents, v. Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Ralph Marino, Individually and as Temporary President and Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, Intervenor-Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1992-06-30
Citations: 80 N.Y.2d 70
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Martin Wolpoff et al., Respondents, v Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Saul Weprin, Individually and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Reeves Dixon et al., Respondents, v Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Ralph Marino, Individually and as Temporary President and Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, Intervenor-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 70–86

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Martin Wolpoff et al., Respondents, v Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Saul Weprin, Individually and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Reeves Dixon et al., Respondents, v Mario M. Cuomo, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and Ralph Marino, Individually and as Temporary President and Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, Intervenor-Appellant.
Argued June 29,1992;
decided June 30, 1992
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Michael A. Carvin and Charles J. Cooper, of the District of Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Gregg M. Mashberg for Ralph Marino, appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding and intervenor-appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.
I. The rulings below directly conflict with this Court’s decisions in Schneider and Bay Ridge. (Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Bay Ridge Community Council v Carey, 103 AD2d 280, 66 NY2d 657; Gaffney v Cummings, 412 US 735; Sincock v Roman, 233 F Supp 615; Wells v Rockefeller, 311 F Supp 48, 398 US 901; Bush v Martin, 251 F Supp 484; Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; Cook v Luckett, 735 F2d 912; Black Political Task Force v Connolly, 679 F Supp 109; Travis v King, 552 F Supp 554.) II. The courts below erred by ignoring the Voting Rights Act. (Thornburg v Gingles, 478 US 30; Meek v Metropolitan Dade County, 908 F2d 1540, 918 F2d 184; Jeffers v Clinton, 730 F Supp 196; Major v Treen, 574 F Supp 325; Jordan v Winter, 604 F Supp 807; Carstens v Lamm, 543 F Supp 68; Goddard v Babbitt, 536 F Supp 538; Kirksey v Board of Supervisors, 554 F2d 139; Moore v Leflore County Bd. of Election Commrs., 502 F2d 621; Garza v County of Los Angeles, 756 F Supp 1298, 918 F2d 763.) III. The courts below improperly reversed the presumption of constitutionality and impermissibly struck down a legislative enactment on the basis of unresolved factual disputes. (Matter of Fay, 291 NY 198; People ex rel. Henderson v Board of Supervisors, 147 NY 1; Matter of Richardson [Stark], 307 NY 269.) IV. The 1992 State Senate plan is constitutional. V. Petitioners’ other claims are without merit. (Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Reynolds, 202 NY 430; Ince v Rockefeller, 290 F Supp 878.) VI. If the Senate plan is struck down, the Assembly plan must also fall. (Matter of Orans, 45 Misc 2d 616, 15 NY2d 339; Upham v Seamon, 456 US 37; White v Weiser, 412 US 783; Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44.) VII. If this Court finds the enactment unconstitutional, the remedy is to provide the Legislature with an opportunity to correct the constitutional deficiencies. (Matter of Burns v Flynn, 155 Misc 742, 245 App Div 799, 268 NY 601; Matter of Tishman v Sprague, 293 NY 42; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44; Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Chapman v Meier, 420 US 1; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Wise v Lipscomb, 437 US 535; Connor v Finch, 431 US 407; Burns v Richardson, 384 US 73; Bandemer v David, 603 F Supp 1479, 478 US 109.)
C. Daniel Chill, Elaine M. Reich and Lawrence D. Bernfeld for Saul Weprin, appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding and respondent in the second above-entitled proceeding.
I. There was no controversy before Justice Saks regarding Assembly districts. Thus, the court below has issued an impermissible advisory opinion concerning Assembly district lines. (Brasher v United States Guar. Co., 1 NY2d 584; New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527; Matter of Richardson, 247 NY 401.) II. The bill contains a severability clause and hence the unconstitutionality of the Senate lines does not, ipso facto, invalidate the Assembly lines. (People ex rel. Henderson v Board of Supervisors, 147 NY 1; People ex rel. Carter v Rice, 135 NY 473; Matter of Sherrill v O'Brien, 188 NY 185; People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v Knapp, 230 NY 48; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44; Matter of Fay, 291 NY 198; WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 US 633; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Thornburg v Gingles, 478 US 30; United Jewish Orgs. v Carey, 430 US 144.) III. Any master appointed by the court below would, as a matter of law, be limited to consideration of the Assembly plan passed by the Legislature. (Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Connor v Finch, 431 US 407; Chapman v Meier, 420 US 1; White v Weiser, 412 US 783; Maryland Comm, v Tawes, 377 US 656; Wise v Lipscomb, 437 US 535; Upham v Seamon, 456 US 37; Burton v Hobbie, 543 F Supp 235, 459 US 961.)
Stanley Kalmon Schlein for Martin Wolpoff and others, respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding.
I. The New York State Constitution requires a finding that the Senate plan is unconstitutional. (Matter of Sherrill v O'Brien, 188 NY 185; Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315.) II. New York State constitutional requirements must be met and such requirements only give way to the minimal extent required by Federal supremacy. (Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; Gaffney v Cummings, 412 US 735; White v Regester, 412 US 755; Flateau v Anderson, 537 F Supp 257.) III. The Senate plan cannot be defended on the basis of "one man one vote” requirements. (Gaffney v Cummings, 412 US 735; White v Regester, 412 US 755; Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; Brown v Thompson, 462 US 835.) IV. The current Senate plan cannot be defended on the basis of voting rights requirements. V. The Senate plan and its defenders are attempting to mislead the courts and the public. (Bay Ridge Community Council v Carey, 66 NY2d 657; United Jewish Orgs. v Carey, 430 US 144.) VI. Respondent Cuomo has effectively confessed judgment, undoing the validity of his acts. VII. Appellant’s rejoinders in the proceedings below were entirely inapposite. VIII. Appellant can draw no comfort from the district lines of the past decade. IX. The decision should be affirmed because it is based on factual findings which are not subject to review at this level. (Matter of Mercorella v Benza, 37 NY2d 792. X. Appellants are not entitled to an automatic stay and any stay already in effect ought be lifted forthwith, in the interests of justice.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Richard Rifkin, Jerry Boone, Joel Graber and Dennis Safran of counsel), for Mario M. Cuomo and others, respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.
I. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of these direct appeals pursuant to CPLR 5601 (b) (2). (Matter of Orans, 45 Misc 2d 616, 15 NY2d 339, appeal dismissed sub nom. Rockefeller v Orans, 383 US 10.) II. The Assembly lines should not have been stricken. (Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339; Upham v Seamon, 456 US 37; White v Weiser, 412 US 783; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533.) III. This Court should exercise its jurisdiction to review and determine the constitutionality of the Senate’s lines. (Baker v Carr, 369 US 186; People ex rel. Carter v Rice, 135 NY 473; Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 US 633; Matter of Orans, 17 NY2d 601; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Wise v Lipscomb, 437 US 535.)
George F. Carpinello for Manfred Ohrenstein and another, respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.
I. Petitioners have made a prima facie showing that the 1992 Senate reapportionment plan violates article III, §4 of the New York State Constitution. II. Requiring the Legislature to honor article III, §4 to the extent practicable is the only means the people have to limit partisan gerrymandering. (Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Smith v Board of Supervisors, 148 NY 187; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44; Matter of Richardson [Stark], 307 NY 269; WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 US 633; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339; Glinski v Lomenzo, 16 NY2d 27; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Bay Ridge Community Council v Carey, 103 AD2d 280, 66 NY2d 657.) III. Defendant Marino’s defenses to the 1992 plan have been demonstrated to be factually without merit. (Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; Brown v Thompson, 462 US 835.)
Theodore S. Steingut, Jerome Tarnoff, Peter J. Kiernan, Allison M. Walsh and L. Banks Tarver for Reeves Dixon and others, respondents in the second above-entitled proceeding.
I. The 1992 Senate plan violates State constitutional apportion ment provisions concerning integrity of county lines, contiguity, compactness and gerrymandering. (Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339; Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 US 633; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Bay Ridge Community Council v Carey, 115 Misc 2d 433, 103 AD2d 280; Davis v Bandemer, 478 US 109; Matter of Dowling, 219 NY 44.) II. The State constitutional apportionment provisions are controlling, absent unavoidable conflict with Federal law. (Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339; WMCA, Inc. v Lomenzo, 377 US 633; Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; White v Regester, 412 US 755; Gaffney v Cummings, 412 US 735.) III. The 1992 Senate plan’s violations of State constitutional law are not unavoidably necessary to comply with Federal law. (Martin v Edwards Labs., 60 NY2d 417; Property Clerk v Scricca, 140 Misc 2d 433; Jeffers v Clinton, 730 F Supp 196; Rybicki v State Bd. of Elections, 574 F Supp 1082; Gunn v Chickasaw County, 705 F Supp 315; United Jewish Orgs. v Wilson, 510 F2d 512, affd on other grounds sub nom. United Jewish Orgs. v Carey, 430 US 144; Mirrione v Anderson, 717 F2d 743, 465 US 1036.)

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Wachtler.
On March 9, 1992, the New York State Legislature voted to adopt a redistricting plan for the Senate and the Assembly (Senate Bill S 7280). On May 4, 1992, the Governor signed the plan, as approved and later amended, into law (L 1992, ohs 76, 77, 78). Within days, two separate challenges to the redistricting plan were mounted in State court, pursuant to article III, § 5 of the State Constitution and section 4221 of McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of NY (L 1911, ch 773, § 1). The first of these, Wolpoff v Cuomo, was commenced by order to show cause filed in Supreme Court, Bronx County, on or about May 8, 1992. Petitioners, four residents and registered voters of Bronx County, claimed that the plan for redistricting the Senate violated article III, § 4 of the State Constitution. Petitioners alleged that the Senate redistricting plan unconstitutionally fragments Bronx County into six separate Senate districts, only two of which are contained wholly within Bronx County, despite the fact that by virtue of population, Bronx County could support four wholly self-contained Senate districts.
The second action, Dixon v Cuomo, was commenced in Supreme Court, New York County, by order to show cause filed on or about May 18, 1992. Petitioners, nine registered voters residing in proposed Senate districts throughout the State, similarly alleged violations of article III, § 4 of the State Constitution. In their petition, they contended that the Senate redistricting plan "is a rank partisan and personal-interest gerrymander" that unnecessarily fragments counties throughout the State and creates districts that are neither compact nor contiguous.
In Wolpoff, the Senate Majority Leader, a named party, had the case removed to Federal court pursuant to 28 USC § 1443 (2). The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, however, sent the case back to State court (Wolpoff v Cuomo, 792 F Supp 964). Appeal of this remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is set for the week of July 13,1992. A temporary stay of the remand order expired on June 9, and oral argument was heard on the petition in Supreme Court, Bronx County, on June 12. That afternoon, the State court struck down the Senate redistricting plan as violative of the State Constitution in that it "excessively, gratuitously and without supervening need dictated by federal law, disregards the integrity of county boundaries in the creation of Senatorial districts." The court struck down the Assembly plan as well, based on the requirement in article III, § 5 that the Senate and the Assembly be redistricted by the same law.
Meanwhile, the Majority Leader, who was not a named party in Dixon v Cuomo, moved to intervene in that case and his request was granted, but was conditioned upon his agreement not to seek removal of the case to Federal court. On June 15, Supreme Court, New York County, having considered the arguments in Dixon v Cuomo, similarly declared the redistricting plan unconstitutional.
The Majority Leader appealed pursuant to CPLR 5601 (b) (2). In addition, the Assembly Speaker has filed a direct appeal challenging the decision in Wolpoff to invalidate the Assembly plan along with the Senate plan, even though the Assembly plan had not been challenged.
In the interim, a three-Judge Federal court issued its Per Curiam opinion, acknowledging its "independent obligation" in such matters, but also declaring that it was "fully cognizant of the primacy of the state legislature and state judi clary" in redistricting (Fund for Accurate & Informed Representation v Weprin, US Dist Ct, ND NY, June 19, 1992).
We begin our analysis by turning to the constitutional provision implicated by this litigation. Article III, §4 of the State Constitution states that "each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact form as practicable, and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district except to make two or more senate districts wholly in such county."
In Matter of Orans (15 NY2d 339), we considered the continued vitality of article III, §4 in light of the United States Supreme Court decisions in Reynolds v Sims (377 US 533) and related cases, in which the Court had held that both houses of a State Legislature, by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, must be apportioned substantially on an equal population basis. We recognized in that case that redistricting plans could no longer be based solely upon county lines without running afoul of Reynolds v Sims, and that "the integrity of all the counties in these respects cannot be complete" (Matter of Orans, supra, at 351). We stated at that time, however, that "the historic and traditional significance of counties in the districting process should be continued where and as far as possible" (id., at 352).
Redistricting plans must also comply with the requirements of the Federal Voting Rights Act (42 USC § 1973 et seq.). 42 USC § 1973 (b) specifically provides that a voting rights violation occurs if "based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected] class of citizens in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." It should be noted that the Senate redistricting plan at issue in this case was reviewed for compliance with the Voting Rights Act by the United States Department of Justice and was subsequently approved.
The issue before us on these appeals is not whether the Senate redistricting plan technically violates the express language of the State Constitution. No one disputes that such a technical violation has occurred, and in Matter of Orans, we recognized that such violations were inevitable if the Legisla turc was to comply with Federal constitutional requirements. Indeed, each of the four alternative plans submitted by the petitioners technically violates the State Constitution as well. Rather, we examine the balance struck by the Legislature in its effort to harmonize competing Federal and State requirements. The test is whether the Legislature has "unduly departed" from the State Constitution's requirements regarding contiguity, compactness and integrity of counties (Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420, 429) in its compliance with Federal mandates. "[I]t is not our function to determine whether a plan can be worked out that is superior to that set up by [the Legislature]. Our duty is, rather, to determine whether the legislative plan substantially complies with the Federal and State Constitutions" (id., at 427). A strong presumption of constitutionality attaches to the redistricting plan and we will upset the balance struck by the Legislature and declare the plan unconstitutional " 'only when it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the fundamental law, and that until every reasonable mode of reconciliation of the statute with the Constitution has been resorted to, and reconciliation has been found impossible' " (Matter of Fay, 291 NY 198, 207).
This is no simple endeavor. We first address petitioners' concerns regarding the integrity of counties. An examination of the redistricting plan reveals the following: 28 Senate districts out of 61 cross county lines; 11 minor counties and 12 major counties are divided. For purposes of the current plan, a minor county has fewer than 294,925 citizens, which is the figure obtained by dividing the State's citizen population (17,990,455) by the number of Senate seats (61). Further, and apparently for the first time in State history, there are four pairs of bi-county districts. Thus, two separate Senate districts cross the county line between Nassau County and Suffolk County, another two districts cross between Bronx County and New York County, another two between Bronx County and Westchester County and another two between Orange County and Ulster County. We note that the plan challenged here is not markedly different from the plan upheld in Schneider, (supra). In Schneider, 26 out of 60 Senate districts crossed county lines, splitting 9 minor counties and 10 major counties.
The Majority Leader has marshaled a considerable amount of statistical and demographic data to support his contention that these districts were drawn in a "good faith effort" (Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, supra, at 428) to comply with Reynolds v Sims and the Voting Rights Act and not for partisan political reasons, as petitioners argue. In support of his argument that the Legislature's motives were benign, he points to the fact that for purposes of the United States Supreme Court equal population mandates, the Senate plan has a maximum population deviation of 4.29% from the ideal, which is well below the 16.4% deviation held acceptable by the United States Supreme Court in Mahan v Howell (410 US 315).
Petitioners, by contrast, have submitted four alternative plans, all of which have higher population deviations, but all of which divide fewer counties. In addition, none of the proffered alternative plans create pairs of bi-county districts, as does the current plan. Petitioners contend that the Legislature could have drafted a plan that had a higher, but still acceptable, population deviation and thereby done less damage to the integrity of county lines.
We are not here to determine whether the Legislature complied with the Federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department has already determined that the plan meets Federal requirements in that regard. Nor is it our role to assess the equal population deviations contained in the plans before us and determine which plan best balances Federal equal population and State constitutional directives. We are here to decide whether in complying with Federal mandates, the Legislature unduly undermined article III, § 4 of the State Constitution. That an alternative plan might have been devised that conflicted less with article III, § 4 but did greater violence to the equal representation principle is no basis for rejecting the Senate plan. Further, we cannot focus solely on the challenged districts and ignore the fact that a redistricting plan must form an integrated whole.
Balancing the myriad requirements imposed by both the State and the Federal Constitution is a function entrusted to the Legislature. It is not the role of this, or indeed any, court to second-guess the determinations of the Legislature, the elective representatives of the people, in this regard. We are hesitant to substitute our own determination for that of the Legislature even if we would have struck a slightly different balance on our own. Having considered the competing demographic and statistical data submitted by all of the parties in these cases, we find that the petitioners have not overcome the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to the redistricting plan.
Notwithstanding the technical deficiencies of the Senate redistricting plan, we find that respondent has put forth more than enough evidence to support his argument that any such violation was minimized and that the district lines were drawn as they were in order to comply with Federal statutory and constitutional requirements. The Senate plan indeed compromises the integrity of 23 counties, as petitioners have noted. But respondent has countered petitioners' allegations with a detailed defense of the proposed plan that is grounded in a complex analysis of population trends and voting patterns, and the way in which both must be accommodated in order to comply with Federal requirements. Although we are troubled by the number of divided counties in the new plan and by the four bi-county pairings, it is not appropriate for us to substitute our evaluation of the relevant statistical data for that of the Legislature. We are satisfied that in balancing State and Federal requirements, the respondent has complied with the State Constitution as far as practicable, and we cannot conclude on this record that the Legislature acted in bad faith in approving this redistricting plan. Having made that determination, our review is ended (Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, supra, at 428-429).
We have considered the petitioners' compactness and contiguity claims, and we find them to be without merit. Accordingly, in each case, the judgment of Supreme Court should be reversed, without costs, the petition dismissed, and judgment granted declaring chapters 76, 77 and 78 of the Laws of 1992 constitutional.