Document: 389 U.S. 421 88 S.Ct. 578 19 L.Ed.2d 651 Nelson A. ROCKEFELLER, Governor of New York, et al.v.David I. WELLS al. No. 691. Supreme Court the United States October Term, 1967. December 18, 1967 Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. Samuel Hirshowitz, First Asst. Gen., and George D. Zuckerman, for appellants. Isidore Levine, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to affirm is granted judgment affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting. 3 This action was brought by appellees under Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, declaratory other relief. Their complaint alleged that York's congressional districting statute does not conform requirements Art. I, § 2, Constitution, as those are defined in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 1, 84 526, 11 481. A three-judge court convened. 4 found, on basis 1960 census statistics, population one 41 districts varied from average 15.1%, 12 much 10%. It concluded such a variation average, without suitable explanation, 'violates constitutional requirements.' 273 F.Supp. 984, at 989. noted there have been 'substantial' changes these since 1960, complete accuracy redistricting must await results 1970 census, but reasoned compromise would be require immediately, premised best figures now available. Revisions could then made when statistics were released. simply affirms, elaboration or opinion. 5 There are, my opinion, two principal issues here worthy plenary consideration. First, District thought it 'too clear debate' this enunciated Court.' F.Supp., few reapportionment cases beyond debate, and, with respect, invalidity certainly among them. true variations 18.28% 6 Presumably size numerical alone decisive,1 if 'particular circumstances case,' Reynolds Sims, supra, 377 578, 1390; Swann Adams, 385 445, 87 569, may crucial validity statutes, surely should endeavor define what indicate how they relevant. Instead, more often disposes summarily, see e. g., Toombs Fortson, supra; Duddleston Grills, 455, 611, 17 508; Kirkpatrick Preisler, 450, 613, 511; Lucas Rhodes, 212, 416, 423; issue an content recite relevant undertaking any elucidation. See, supra. All has effect leaving state legislatures,2 lower courts, even Congress3 meaningful guidance. 7 Second, confusion created Court's reticence compounded, which held satisfy requirements, uncertainty appropriate next step. e.g., provided '[l]ittle guidance help,' concluded, nonetheless, immediate ordered, based available figures. expedient pattern set 383 210, 86 767, 15 707. Swann, however, merely brief per curiam did purport establish general rule remedies. As elections 1968 approach, seems me time come provide clearer courts proper remedy cases. More particularly, some indication given part, any, play, combination later, albeit incomplete unverified, See 8 I note probable jurisdiction, case argument. note, Preisler Secretary State Missouri, 257 953, said specifically 'population sole standard representation.' Id., 973. affirmed opinion 511. also Bush Martin, 224 499, 511, aff'd, 222, 709, 656. York Legislature, example, careful efforts comply had Court. Joint Legislative Committee thus expressly recognized 'the absence Federal statutory standards,' most important substantial equality population.' Interim Report Reapportionment, 1961 N.Y.Leg.Doc.No. 45, p. 4. added '[w]hile exact ideal, ideal that, practical reasons, can never attained. Some will always necessary. question arises permissible fair variation.' Ibid. House Judiciary, reported favorably 1965 bill intended implement creating series standards apportionment districts. '[t]he * reluctant prescribe *.' H.R.Rep.No. 140, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 2. One included maximum 15% above below within State. 2-3. Given present law area, difficult imagine legislator sensibly decide whether satisfied applicable requirements. Indeed, Representative Kastenmeier dissented Committee's report, noting 'there serious doubt H.R. 5505 can, light case, withstand attack.' 5.

Category: 1