Document: 381 U.S. 431 85 S.Ct. 1582 14 L.Ed.2d 480 Anthony J. TRAVIA et al.v.John C. LOMENZO al. No. 1218. Supreme Court of the United States June 1, 1965 Simon H. Rifkind and Edward N. Costikyan, for appellants. Louis Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. New York, Daniel M. Cohen George D. Zuckerman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Donald Zimmerman, Special Orrin G. Judd, Lomenzo others. Leonard B. Sand Max Gross, WMCA, Inc., others, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to accelerate appeal is denied. application a stay, addressed Mr. Justice Harlan as Circuit referred by him consideration under Rule 50(6), 2 HARLAN, dissenting. 3 An has been made me, Justice, stay pending from an order three-judge District Court, dated May 24, 1965, ordering York hold special legislative election on November 2, electoral scheme embodied in reapportionment 'Plan A'1 passed Legislature, signed Governor, held unconstitutional State Constitution Appeals. was accompanied motion, asking acceleration immediate hearing appeal, which relief sought me incident. Because questions were my opinion inextricably related involved issues far-reaching importance, I full determination (see Sup.Ct.Rule 50(6)) conjunction with appeal. now denies both accelerate, respectfully dissent. 4 A' one four alternative plans Legislature impact July 27, 1964, entered pursuant this Court's decision Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 633, 84 1418, 12 568, York's then-existing method apportionment violative Fourteenth Amendment. provided way interim that (1) 1964 elections could proceed invalidated system, but legislators would be permitted serve only one-year period, instead two-year term Constitution; (2) must constitutionally valid plan enacted submitted approval not later than April (later extended 5, 1965), so elected again year; (3) regularly scheduled 1966 election, normal term, same or some other court-approved plan. This summarily affirmed order. Hughes 379 694, 713, 13 698. Two dissenting Justices have set case plenary consideration, two concurring expressly noted action did foreclose modifying its light subsequent developments. 5 In December meeting session, Governor plans, which, A,' matter before us. On January 26, found satisfied federal constitutional requirements, each not. 238 F.Supp. 916. 14, Appeals all invalid Constitution, Assembly more 150 members, thus exceeding membership limit prescribed Art. 3, § 2. re Orans, 15 N.Y.2d 339, 258 N.Y.S.2d 825, 206 N.E.2d 854. 6 Ignoring Appeals' holding Plan A violated majority 18, ordered state One judge dissented, considering appropriate, though admittedly wholly satisfactory, 'interim' solution permit go forward old formula, being accorded 'weighted votes' legislature based population. 7 three bills, substantial effects adopt district judge's weighted voting formula without fall;2 create bi-partisan commission devise new requirements;3 issue call convention promulgate permanent govern 1968 elections.4 Speaker President pro tem Senate (the intervenors-appellants here) thereupon leave intervene proceedings persuade court modify accordance these proposals. Their granted, refused earlier These applications accelerated followed immediately. 8 matters bristle difficult important touch nerve centers sound operation our judicial political systems. They involve, among things, right house shall temporarily greater size Constitution. Surely such are deserving reasoned explication. By denying refusing instead, effect decided them also sub silentio. For while denial does technically moot it manifest practical action, since course will even heard until after presently taken place. 9 Without prejudging question, propriety court's highest violate respects claimed Federal when number alternatives available, raises what consider very serious should at least hear. All parties shown themselves willing argue promptly. argument, render promptly thereafter, opinions merits controversy follow due course. Compare Cooper Aaron, 358 78 1401, 19.5 10 am loss understand casual disposing can find no considerations any kind justify it. face up articulately problems unnatural aftermath decisions last Term. Laws c. 976. At time successive amendments 976: cc. 977-978 (Plan 'B'), 979 'C'), 981 'D'). acts throughout Plans A, B, C Intro. 6051, Print. 7067, vetoed 1965. 6050, 7066, 5695, 5988. necessity prompt disposition evidenced fact State's primary machinery today if next take

Category: 1