Document: 394 U.S. 542 89 S.Ct. 1234 22 L.Ed.2d 535 David I. WELLS, Appellant,v.Nelson A. ROCKEFELLER, as Governor of the State New York, et al. No. 238. Argued Jan. 13, 1969. Decided April 7, Robert B. McKay, York City, for appellant. George D. Zuckerman, appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case was argued with Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 526, 1225, 519, which affirmed judgment a three-judge District Court declaring invalid Missouri's 1967 congressional districting statute. Before us ere is Southern sustained validity York's 1968 statute, N.Y.Laws 1968, c. 8, 281 F.Supp. 821 (1968). In that court had struck down an earlier statute apportioning 41 seats and retained jurisdiction pending action by Legislature to redress plan's deficiencies. The recognized thorough revision district lines might not be possible in time upcoming election but concluded nevertheless '(t)here are enough changes can superimposed on present districts cure most flagrant inequalities.' 273 984, 992, aff'd, 389 421, 88 578, 19 651 (1967). 2 On February 28, month half after reconvened, presently under attack enacted. After hearing, court, March 20, stating plan afforded voters 'an opportunity vote 1970 elections basis population equality within reasonably comparable districts.' F.Supp., at 826. We noted probable jurisdiction. 393 819, 115, 21 91 reverse insofar sustains use election. 3 Appellant levels two constitutional attacks against statute: (1) violates equal-population principle Wesberry Sanders, 376 1, 84 11 481 (1964), (2) represents systematic intentional partisan gerrymander violating Art. I, § 2, Constitution Fourteenth Amendment. do reach, intimate no view upon merits of, constitutionally impermissible gerrymander. hold reversal Court's compelled our decision today supra, elucidates command meet standard equal representation numbers people nearly practicable. 4 correctly held its 'there burden proponent any justify deviations from equality.' 987. took testimony question justification hearing consider Recognizing enacted virtually debate either house Legislature, work Joint Legislative Committee, court's refers Report Committee source justifications relied sufficient sustain disparities created plan. 823—824. have been referred same source. 5 recites 'gave priority totals several districts' they appeared 1960 decennial census 'very limited consideration given shifts since 1960. further '(o)ther considerations were geographical conformation area districted, maintenance county integrity, facility various Boards Elections 'tool up' forthcoming (1968) primary election, region, throughout state.' Interim Reapportionment N.Y. 6 heart scheme, however, lay treat seven sections homogeneous regions divide each region into identical population. Thirty-one constructed principle. remaining 10 istricts composed groupings whole counties. A chart showing appears Appendix this opinion. are: (a) Suffolk Nassau Counties Long Island five having average 393,391 maximum deviation 208; (b) Queens County four 434,672 120; (c) Kings plus made up part Queens, Richmond Kings, 417,171 307; (d) Bronx eight 390,415 496; (e) Westchester Putnam 420,307 161; (f) Wayne Monroe remainder other counties 410,688 256; (g) Erie Niagara three 435,652 228. 'North country' 7 It clear compels conclusion scheme unconstitutional. there held, U.S., 531, S.Ct., 1239, 'the States create provide permits only variances unavoidable despite good-faith effort achieve absolute equality, or shown.' general command, course, equalize all satisfied equalizing defined sub-states. could does claim legislature precise mathematical among districts. Rather, tries constructing sub-states means keep distinct interests intact. But we 'to accept variances, large small, order specific interest orientations antithetical basic premise people.' To such would permit groups overrepresented expense different orientations. Equality sub-state inequality State. 8 Nor variations justified fact these entire supra. 9 appreciate did rest entirely appraisal As earlier, when then-existing unconstitutional, it imminence redistricting unrealistic possibility therefore said 992. 26, before us. approved both elections. Since months away cannot say error p rmitting proceed infirmities. See Kilgarlin Hill, 386 120, 121, 87 820, 821, 17 771 (1967); Martin Bush, 222, 223, 709, 656 (1964); 390 939, 1053, 1129 ample remains promulgate meeting standards machinery must set motion remand entry new consistent so ordered. Judgment reversed remanded. 12 APPENDIX. 13 POPULATION OF NEW YORK'S CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS UNDER PLAN. 14 C.D. Dev. % Description. 15 393,585 - 3.845 Part Suffolk. 16 393,465 3.874 Suffolk, Nassau. 393,434 3.882 18 393,183 3.943 393,288 3.918 20 434,615 + 6.178 Queens. 434,750 6.212 434,552 6.163 23 434,770 6.217 24 417,122 1.905 Kings. 25 417,090 1.897 26 417,298 1.948 27 417,040 1.885 28 417,080 1.895 29 1.898 30 417,478 1.992 Richmond, 31 390,742 4.540 York. 32 390,861 4.511 33 390,023 4.715 34 390,363 4.632 35 390,552 4.586 Bronx. 36 390,492 4.601 37 390,228 4.665 38 390,057 4.707 39 420,146 2.644 Putnam, Westchester. 40 420,467 2.722 409,349 Rockland, Orange, Sullivan, Delaware. 42 396,122 3.225 Dutchess, Ulster, Columbia, Greene, Schoharie. 43 425,822 4.031 Albany, Schenectady. 44 415,030 1.394 Rensselaer, Saratoga, Washington, Warren, Fulton, Hamilton, Essex. 45 425,905 4.051 Clinton, St. Lawrence, Jefferson, Lewis, Franklin, Oswego. 46 385,406 5.843 Oneida, Madison, Herkimer. 47 415,333 1.468 Chemung, Broome, Tioga, Tompkins. 48 423,028 3.348 Onondaga. 49 386,148 5.662 Ontario, Yates, Seneca, Cayuga, Cortland, Chenango, Otsego, M'gomery. 50 410,943 0.396 Monroe, Wayne. 51 410,432 0.271 Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming, Livingston. 52 382,277 6.608 Chautaqua, Cattaraugus, Allegany, Steuben, Schuyler. 53 435,393 6.369 Erie. 54 435,684 6.440 Erie, Niagara. 55 435,880 6.488 56 Mean............................ 409,324 57 Largest (41st C. D.)......... 58 Smallest (38th D.)........ 59 Citizen Population Variance (largest 60 divided smallest population). 1.139 61 Maximum Deviation above Mean..... 6.488% 62 below 6.608% 63 FORTAS, concurring. 64 I concur except extent relies Missouri cases, joined reasons stated my concurring those cases. 65 attempt defend approximate equality. argues devised based grouping regions. agree majority that, purposes here involved, may substantially grossly disregard residence figures recognize regional dissent Avery Midland County, 90 474, 495, 1114, 1126, 66 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 67 Whatever room remained prior decisions free play political process matters reapportionment now eliminated today's Draconian judgments. Marching nonexistent 'command 2' Constitution,1 transforms slogan absolute. Straight indeed path righteous legislator. Slide rule hand, he avoid thought lines, local traditions, politics, history, economics, magic formula: one man, vote. 68 Brothers WHITE FORTAS demonstrate, insistence perfection make sense even own terms. Census themselves inexact; mobile rapidly renders them obsolete; ineligible unevenly distributed Nevertheless, refuses legislative common compensate Bureau inadequacies. If 'scientific' data available divergence figures, holds nothing done—'we mean open avenue subterfuge.' 535, 1231. 69 all-pervasive distrust completely alien established notions judicial review. Butler Pennsylvania, How. 402, L.Ed. 472 (1851); Davis Department Labor, 317 249, 225, 246 (1942); Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 80 1367, 1435 (1960). precedent themselves. 'Reynolds Sims (377 553, 1362, 506) exactness required state apportionment plans. De minimis * *.' Swann Adams, 385 440, 444, 569, 501 see also 18, (1964).2 70 Even more important, exclusive concentration arithmetic blinds realities process, Rockefeller makes clear. matter perfectly compatible 'gerrymandering' worst sort. computer grind out totally frustrate popular will overwhelming number critical issues. than satisfy vote; structure well theory responsive sentiments community record us, absolutely indication demand yet multitude fair chance their voices heard Congress. 71 appellant himself suggest proper demands perfect advances contemplates 4.7% average, improvement 1.9 percentage points State's 6.6% deviation. Moreover, plan, delegation represent less 49.3% appellant's 'improves' figure 0.5%, increasing 49.8% Appellant's Perfection, still 0.2% away. 72 Although offers marginal benefits voting egalitarianism, although contains suggestion arguably coherent expression will, rejects legislature's considered proposal simply because seeks remain true traditional lines. doing so, ignores salutary warning found Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 578—579, 1390, 506 (1964): 'Indiscriminate districting, without regard subdivision natural historical boundary little invitation gerrymandering.' Yet, condemns approach 'permit(s) over represented orientations.' Wells Rockefeller, 546, 1237. Of inevitably involve choices between groups. recognized, legislatures prefer follow blatant partisanship tempered constraints history tradition. believes has blow fully representative democracy, sorely mistaken. past, likely drawn maximize advantage party temporarily dominant public affairs. 73 deal hopelessly malapportioned unwilling order. whether requires mathematics substitute art statecraft. think plans submitted properly regarded offensive requirement imposed Wesberry—a whose reasoning find impossible swallow, dictate myself bound—I dissent. 74 judgments cases affirm case.L.Ed.2d 75 WHITE, 76 consistently opinions establish ground rules single member should if measurable contribution ends whic pursuing area, very useful harmful either. With due respect, am firmly convinced rulings unduly rigid unwarranted applications Equal Protection Clause unnecessarily courts abrasive task drawing 77 Accepting assign itself, quibble acceptably small. And willing variation exceeded normally call intervention. thumb, largest 10% 15% me, absent quite unusual circumstances At least, trivial level, explanations variance tolerant eye. 78 far reasonable illusory approaches goal suggested come nearer. demonstrates, accurate compiled professional enumerators statisticians bent precision, Massive growth inaccurate 1967. That why taken every years. When finds 3% inexact losing perspective sticking trifle. 79 seems arbitrary discard respects boundaries subdivisions, some permissible. involved pains leeway context. invokes way distinguishes federal districting. '(i)ndiscriminate 1390. vary norm where another reduces smaller figure. similar objections rejection compactness acceptable minor virtues lost who bury opposition. 81 reality, itself gerrymandering complex blend political, economic, regional, considerations. terms gerrymander, situation much what literally says—a zero variation—rather 'substantial' countenance Either prevent minority controlling delegation, powerful forces toward voter influence performance. effective minuscule differences standards. neither alone de iberate evil Amendment proscribe. 82 Today's hand require adherence admittedly downgrade restraint greater potential threat representation, Legislatures intent minimizing selected racial invited ignore compact long adhere using know sometimes incorrect. merit confusion priorities. 83 lead unnecessary intrusion judiciary business. thing possible. But, admittedly, not. groping cleancut, per se minimize confrontations while satisfying wide mark. results shift dispute few scale; engaged quibbling disputes questions 1% 'better' larger variation, 1.1% 2%. municipal ignored, produce countless differing another, ramifications. Ultimately, asked decide families apartment closer apparent Using spacious language inject squabbles unacceptable pre-emption function. Not necessarily precipitate round fear run courts, rather nonpartisan commissions, making States. best, districts, final unavoidably significant repercussions, draw unnecessarily. 542, 1234, 1237, 535; 1225 1229, 519. discussed dissenting extraordinary leap reading straightforward provision 'The House Representatives shall Members chosen second Year People *' While cautions 'it precision,' delineate deviate 'ideal.'

Category: 1