Document: 381 U.S. 415 85 S.Ct. 1572 14 L.Ed.2d 689 Frank M. JORDAN, Secretary of State California, et al.v.Phill SILVER. No. 935. Supreme Court the United States June 1, 1965 Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. Charles E. Corker and A. Barrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Herman F. Selvin, for appellants. Phill Silver, appellee, pro se. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion appellant Senate Legislature California to take judicial notice official records is denied. strike dismiss or affirm also granted judgment affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN, whom CLARK STEWART join, concurring. 3 Constitution reserves people initiative power propose constitutional amendments by filing a petition with State.1 If signed 8% persons who voted in preceding gubernational election, proposed amendment will be submitted at next general only bare majority vote required order pass amendment. 4 Prior 1926 Constitution, Art. IV, § 6, provided that both houses legislature would apportioned on basis population.2 In an measure, known as Proposition 28, was voters which deleted requirement strict population basis, leaving method apportioning Assembly unaffected.3 statements accompanying were distributed all voters, described proposition attempt provide federal-type plan similar apportionment Congress, summarized arguments con proposal.4 28 approved popular 437,003 363,208 November following year adopted statutes effectuate This legislation state law, them 1928 election.5 composed 40 members, elected from senatorial districts; districts based population, but no county could contain more than one district, district consist three counties.6 5 Since adoption these changes, various measures have been occasion change this system Senate. 1948 such defeated 2,250,937 1,069,899.7 1960 3,408,090 1,876,185.8 And 1962 another 2,495,440 2,181,758.9 6 today summarily affirms decree District holding apportionment, consistently voting elections, invalid under decisions Reynolds v. Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506, companion cases. Were I able detect any those cases slightest optimism might consider last Term's reapportionment pronouncements leave room choose themselves kind legislative structure they wish have—at least when democratic processes employed are straightforward flexible California—I 'Note' hear case. Finding, however, squarely Lucas Forty-Fourth General Colorado, 713, 1459, 632,10 reluctantly acquiesce Court's summary affirmance.11 Calif.Const. 1. 'For purpose choosing members legislature, shall divided into forty eighty assembly districts, nearly equal may be, contiguous territory, called districts.' 1879, Calif.Laws 1925, p. xi. districts. Such be. Each senator each member assembly. * [I]n formation city counties small grouped not exceed district. *' 1927, lxxxv. Another 20, preserved basis. 492,923 319,456. Record 37. 'Argument Favor Legislative Reapportionment Initiative Measure. "FEDERAL PLANS.' 'This place section article 4, constitution now provides 'as terreitory.' 'The growth particularly unprecedented development two great urban regions state, effect, if representation reapportioned according present consolidating political inhabitants per cent area prejudice representative rights balance inhabit 97 state. foreseeing disadvantages interests has repeatedly declined, since publication federal census, reapportion existing law. alter so enable find solution difficulty protect right bulk fair representation. 'Federal Plan' because its provisions resemble respect congress. It rests upon principle widely recognized American government other governments public equitably alone factors—population territory. measure preserve rural agricultural producing areas comprise it, control house namely: senate. makes does increase legislature. can not, way, add expense. 'Under senator. grouped, given counties. There fity-eight senators. To illustrate working plan, twenty-seven counties, might, reason superior elect senator; sixteen twos eight; fifteen threes five. Every large homogeneous geographical assured 'Twenty-nine states Union their some form principle, include, among others, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Iowa, Ohio. election Ohio 1903, overwhelmingly 731,000 votes it 26,479 against principle. sponsored Farm Bureau Federation, Grange, Farmers Union, Agricultural Committee. But supported chambers commerce, women's clubs, civic organizations generally throughout create well-balanced neither cities nor countryside predominate. just wholesome provision. give better possible determination controversy disturbing best California. 'Vote YES 'DAVID P. BARROWS. Against unfair impractical far relates provision limit Alameda, Los Angeles San Francisco each. These combined 200,000 half result senators, minority represented thirty-seven good discrimination. commercial closely allied interwoven should greater legislation. way base accordance fundamental principles our rule. prescribes determining how formed. merely left commission determine arbitrarily without restriction done. Many contiguous, follow sparsely settled must formed, even argicultural sections senate themselves. populous pay share taxes, controlling voice expenditure state's funds. 'If citizens centers help disfranchise NO principles. 'DANA R. WELLER.' 54. 692,347 favor, 570,120 opposed. 6. effect County, over 6,000,000, Senator smallest together 14,294, Senator. claim made, solely population. 7 13 ballot. 37-38. 8 15 38. 9 23 78. 10 gleam distinction between case this, suggested what said 731 opinion, 1471 S.Ct., wholly dissipated appears shortly thereafter pp. 736-737, 1473-1474 11 affirmance course touch propriety relief later grant, extent still binding drafting legislation, see Colorado Lucas, 379 693, 715, 699.

Category: 1