Court Opinion

ID: 9675064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:41:05.964522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:31.210604
License: Public Domain

RYAN, District Judge
(concurring).
I concur with Judge LEVET and the conclusions he has reached that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit and that the complaint should be dismissed on its merits.
Although there is authority for argument that federal courts lack jurisdiction to pass on the propriety of state legislative apportionment, Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946), subsequent decisions1 appear to hold that federal courts do have jurisdiction to rule on the Constitutional propriety of state legislative apportionment but that this jurisdiction should be exercised only under the most compelling circumstances.
The breadth and scope of the compelling reasons which would support exercise of this jurisdiction have not been specifically defined but Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 346, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960), seems to carry the implication that an attempt by a state to abridge the vote or operate to effectively discriminate against any particular class or group through the fixing of internal political boundaries or legislative election districts will lie within this area of compelling circumstances. Apparent and patent violation of the 15th Amendment or of any other specific injunction of the Constitution .would then lift the propriety of state action out of the so-called political sphere.
There is no claim made here that the apportionment formula before us or the laws enacted to apply it effect a discrimination against any particular racial or religious group. The complaint is that the method of apportionment gives rise solely to territorial or purely geographical discrimination which grossly dilutes the vote of urban dwellers. Judicial interference by federal courts with the power of the state to create internal political or geographical boundaries affecting the right of suffrage can not be supported by mere territorial discrimination and nothing more.
This Court, while possessing jurisdiction, on the undisputed facts before us should not interfere in what Mr. Justice Frankfurter has characterized as a “political thicket”. I concur with Judge LEVET in exercising jurisdiction and in dismissing the complaint.

. Thurman v. Duckworth, 68 F.Supp. 744; appeal dismissed 329 U.S. 675, 67 S.Ct. 21, 91 L.Ed. 596; South v. Peters, 89 F.Supp. 672, aff’d 339 U.S. 276, 70 S.Ct. 641, 94 L.Ed. 834; Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 273, 292 S.W.2d 40, appeal dismissed 352 U.S. 920, 77 S.Ct. 559, 1 L.Ed.2d 540; Radford v. Gary, D.C., 145 F.Supp. 541, aff’d 352 U.S. 991, 77 S.Ct. 559, 1 L.Ed.2d 540; Magraw v. Donovan, D.C., 163 F.Supp. 184.