Document: 370 U.S. 190 82 S.Ct. 1234 8 L.Ed.2d 430 W.M.C.A., INC., et al.v.Caroline K. SIMON al. No. 836. June 11, 1962. Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross, for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Irving Galt, Asst. Sol. Gen., George C. Mantzoros Gretchen W. Oberman, Attys. Sheldon Raab, Deputy Leo A. Larkin, Benjamin Offner, Bertram Harnett Francis Morgan, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 On January 1962, the three-judge District Court dismissed complaint alleging violation Constitution United States by York State's constitutional statutory provisions governing apportionment State Senate Assembly Districts. 202 F.Supp. 741. The three judges filed separate opinions, no two which supported judgment dismissal on identical grounds. One opinion expressed view that action should be failure to state a claim, want justiciability, equity. F.Supp., at 742. A second since was not alleged effect discrimination against any particular racial or religious group, but merely geographical discrimination, jurisdiction exercised, only dismiss. 754. third rested ground justiciable merits. 755. 2 March 26, we held in Baker v. Carr, 369 186, 691, 7 663, federal cause is stated claim arbitrary impairment votes means invidiously discriminatory geographic classification. Our well-established practice remand consideration light subsequent decision therefore applies. As Scholle Hare, 429, 910, believe court below first consider merits free from doubts as its justiciability invidious discrimination. vacated case remanded further supra. 3 motions substitute Paul R. Screvane place Abe Stark, Eugene H. Nickerson Holly Patterson, parties appellee are granted. 4 Judgment remanded. 5 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took part this case. 6 HARLAN, dissenting. For reasons given my dissent 430, 911, I would affirm or, failing that, note probable jurisdiction. squarely tenders issue whether Equal Protection Clause Federal violated seats both legislative chambers other than substantially proportional populational basis. Scholle, lower considered rejected it holding existing distribution legislators (founded principles embodied 1894) right. read opinions quite differently does Court. Judge Levet, states 'expressed equity.' After had over action, Levet 'the fails upon relief can granted' (202 753), '(t)here authoritative indication relative weight accorded individual elections legislature, pursuant applicable Constitution, protected equal protection clause Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, contrary seems true.' Id., 749. (Emphasis added.) He then proceeded further: 'If insufficiency adequate require complaint, is, equity sought, slightly differently, clearly demands dismissal.' 753. 9 Ryan, described expressing dismiss.' Actually, however, Ryan agreed with stating outset his opinion: 'I concur conclusions he has reached entertain suit merits.' went state: 'The method gives rise solely territorial purely grossly dilutes vote urban dwellers. Judicial interference courts power create internal political boundaries affecting right suffrage mere nothing more.' Ibid. While language, taken connection some precedes (ibid.), might lend itself thinking terms 'justiciability,' do think properly so read. nowhere suggests disagrees Levet's further, distinctive, dismissal, failed claim. 10 opinion, Waterman, did, says, turn 'non-justiciability.' Waterman declined 'express views reference present violates Amendment Constitution,' id., 755, thereby evincing understanding colleagues also found unnecessary reach. 11 me, thus clear members alternative grounds: (1) matter 'justiciable'; (2) 'territorial discrimination' under York's did give cognizable latter precisely avoided 330, 771, 663 (dissenting opinion); see 265, 736 (concurring opinion). 12 It unfortunate Court, now time, kind without coming grips basic issue, even indicating guidelines courts. supra, course neither.

Category: 1