*1 438 repeat- certain corporate was distributions, beld
edly applica- this Court retroactive any tion of would the Acts to a created thereto prior trust Con- violate the Constitution of and the stitution the United States. 72; A. Pa. 149 2d
Cunningham Estate, 395
1,
A.
159;
Trust,
Warden
382 Pa.
115
2d
Pew
Trust,
311,
Pa.
362 Pa.
67 A. 2d
362
468,
129;
Estate,
Crawford
A.
A. 2d
377 Pa.
124;
Estate,
Steele
458,
250,
2d
Pa.
For these reasons I dissent. decisions, wise
Butcher Bloom. *3 April 1964. Before Argued C. Jones, Bell, J., O’Brien JJ. Cohen, Eagen, Roberts, Arthur E. him Garter Newhold, with R. III, Butter, W. E. Edward Russell and Tyson Goughlin, Eugene F. for petitioners.
Waye, him inter- T. with Jach for George Kelton, Sirott, venors.
Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, him Edward Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, Commonwealth.
Opinion 29, September Mr. Justice Roberts, 1964:
I constitutional va- litigation this is the At issue Fed- Amendment to the under the Fourteenth lidity, of the of seats present apportionment eral Constitution Pennsylvania Legislature. of the in both houses tax- plaintiffs, Pennsylvania March 1962, On 30, complaints filed in the equity and electors, payers of Dauphin Pleas against County of Common Court 442 complaints The of the Commonwealth.
the Secretary any from taking defendant restrained be sought legis for state of elections steps holding toward ap existing of the provisions under the lative offices violated on the acts ground acts1 portionment Federal of the provisions Pennsylvania certain defend filed by After an answer was Constitutions.2 pleadings. for on the judgment moved plaintiffs ant, However, on June 1962. motion denied 13, The was pleas jurisdiction common retained the court of reapportionment concerning held issues action, until them adjudicate refused to justiciable, appropri to enact opportunity had an the Legislature No On forthcoming its sessions.3 at legislation ate As General of the special session 12, 1963, vember considering purpose for convened was sembly reap two Subsequently, legislation. reapportionment No. 1, Act of January 9, 1964, portionment bills, and the (Supp. 1963), 25 P.S. L. (1963) 1419, P. §2221 25 No. P. L. (1963) 1432, 1964, 2, of January 9, Act passed approved were 1963), (Supp. P.S. §2217 the Governor.4 the Su- plaintiffs petitioned January 1964,
On 14, juris- to take immediate Pennsylvania preme granted and on 15 we January this case, diction May 1921, 449, amended, 10, §2201 P. L. as 25 P.S. Act of July districts) ; (pertaining apportionment of Senate Act to the apportionment (pertaining 29, 1953, 956, §2215 P. L. 25 P.S. districts). of House complaint on December action was amended this 17 of Article II on Sections 16 and an attack to include upon proposed senatorial well as Constitution Legisla pending reapportionment representative in the bills February 1964, plaintiffs their second amended filed ture. On raised.
complaint the issues clarified Dauphin (C.P. Trimarchi, Pa. D. & 2d C. Butcher 1962). Co. apportionment House, provides Act No. 2- 1No. Act Senate.
443 plaintiffs’ petition and Special issued a of Cer- Writ tiorari to the Court Dauphin of Common Pleas of County. We also permitted resi- intervention two dents Bucks County complaint who filed a separate inter averring, that District alia, First Legislative of Bucks is not County compact meaning within the of Article of the Constitution II, §17, Pennsylvania and that they are denied fair equal representation and as required Fourteenth Amendment §1 Constitution of the United States. On 1964, January 24, we remanded the matter to the court Dauphin County with directions to hold a allow hearing forthwith, any pertinent amendment and interven- proper any tion, make all necessary appropriate findings and to remit fact, findings its to this report Court as possible. On expeditiously 19, March after several 1964, hearings hearing that court, judge report filed a of fact. On findings April 7, argument oral was held Court. before this
II In considering this we are case, aware that a simi- lar instituted in proceeding was Dis- United States trict Court for the Middle District Pennsylvania on November 1963.5 On three- April 9, 1964, findings court filed judge conclusions of fact, law, opinion holding Reapportion- and an Pennsylvania ment January 9, 1964, provisions Acts certain Constitution to be violative Amendment to the Constitution. Fourteenth Federal various from enjoined state officials Accordingly, thereto. pursuant That elections court re- conducting the matter enactment pending tained jurisdiction plan reapportionment by the As- of a valid General thereof, by in default its own decree or sembly or, manner. At the same it an- other lawful time, some reconvene in on Philadelphia it would nounced Scranton, Supp. (M.D. 1964), appeal F. Pa. Drew (U.S. (No. 1964) 201). June docketed, U.S.L. Week *6 June to relief consider further which 1, 1964, any the April On a of might necessary. stay 14, 1964, ap- federal district granted court order pending was peal the Supreme to Court of the United States.
Ill For decide many we believe should reasons, we the remedies presented provide issues and necessary presence for valid In the achieving reapportionment. of to the demonstrated of willingness Legislature6 the willingness juris act the of our courts to assume of the federal district court should be relieved diction, period matter a this for sufficient responsibility assuming In such remedies to allow become effective. re of in a responsibility securing, the timely fashion, require the apportionment plan which would meet have of Federal and we ments the State Constitutions, of of Supreme Court taken words literally state “We the willingness United States: applaud of decision and render courts assume jurisdiction apportionment to state challenges legislative involving cases Fair Committee Maryland schemes." for Ct. 84 S. Tawes, U.S. Representation supplied.) 1451-52 (1964). (Emphasis Re- Pennsylvania suit recent challenges This senators Acts and election of state apportionment More representatives importantly, thereunder. interpreting of recent decisions light challenges —in of validity United States —the Constitution of Pennsylvania of the Constitution provisions certain government. branch of legislative establish constitutional most important one It presents Common- in the of this history raised ever questions of the citizens rights It the basic involves wealth. lawmakers. their state the election of ap- Court the most this logically, Historically and presented the issues forum determine propriate 7, infra. note See continuing Proper to fashion suitable remedies.
respect judicial relationship necessi- federal-state Pennsyl- by tates consideration Court constitu- vania the relevant state and state statutes provisions, subject, tional to review course, Supreme Court of the United States. jurisdiction respect mat- to the
Furthermore, Common ters involved was obtained the Court Dauphin County prior district to the federal Pleas have and both the former court and this court, diligently light circumstances acted all the complaints filed After the initial were this case. pleas postponed ad- the common court
March, 1962, *7 give judication the in order to of the issues involved forthcoming Legislature opportunity at its an to act special As- the General At a session session. 1963, reapportionment legislation, im- sembly and, enacted jurisdiction mediately assumed Court this thereafter, report findings of fact and a of received this case, Dauphin County hearing court, before the based on argument. federal promptly the Meanwhile, heard preliminary application for a denied an district court injunction officials state have restrained would which legislative any conducting office, for election state from Assembly by of pending the General enactment final being legislation reapportionment considered.7 then Forty-Fourth Lucas v. with be contrasted must This ease 713, n.3, Colorado, Assembly Ct. 84 S. General Supreme United (1964), Court of the the where 1476 n.3 position approval, district of the federal quoted, the States “ de considerations which ‘The court, to abstain: refused Here, present the case. in the instant not are mand abstinence repeatedly Assembly refused has of Colorado the State General by imposed to Colorado Constitution perform mandate to unapportioned legislature. that The likelihood apportion the appears apportion remote. Assembly itself now ever will General jurisdiction retaining Colorado, while Supreme Court it, controversy presented post has subject matter June, of the cause until Under consideration poned further both Therefore, the federal court and the courts state postponed judicial action while final awaiting passage Acts; Pennsylvania Reapportionment both acted promptly their in the respective cases spring 1964.8 Further immediate action us was made unnecessary by of the federal stay order, granted April 14, appeal Supreme 1964, pending Court of the United States. we were given Thus, opportunity opinions await in related that Court cases concerning reapportionment in other states be- fore rendering decision the instant case.
It district obvious, the federal course, court’s decision of April was made without 9, 1964, benefit of this interpretation Court’s Penn- of relevant constitutional sylvania impor- more provisions, and, without tantly, the benefit of con- recent crucial and trolling decisions announced
the’ United States on June
1964.9 We
believe,
reasons which
appear
will
later
in our
opinion,
on
reliance
all that was
opin-
said and directed in the
ion of the district
in many
excellent
court, although
would be
respects,
unsafe.
constitutionally
The General
Assembly
is entitled
to an
to enact
opportunity
reapportionment
legisla-
tion pursuant
to the recent
cases
our
and to
Reynolds
*8
interpretation
pertinent
here of
provisions
circumstances,
parties
not,
these
we must conclude that
at
do
remedy
present,
adequate,
speedy
complete
at
least
have an
apart
grounds
from that
at
asserted
the case
har and
for
thus
”
lacking.’
abstention are at
time
this
8
already indicated,
April
arguments
As
this Court heard
on
7,
findings, opinion
The federal district
court
filed
1964.
its
days later.
order two
9 Reynolds
Sims,
533,
(1964); WMCA,
v.
377 U.S.
447 is Constitution. Legislature Since of Penn- the characteristics intimately acquainted with constitutional responsible and is sylvania primarily that, promptly taken action apportionment, body, workable, to achieve good likely is faith, more apportion- result than an constitutionally acceptable court. ment of the district suggested plan following IY held the United States has Supreme Court legis- state both houses of a bicameral “seats
that basis”;10 population on a apportioned lature must be indiyidual’s legislators to vote for state right “an in a impaired weight when its is unconstitutionally with votes compared diluted when substantial fashion State”;11 in other parts living citizens of resi- place of votes because of “Diluting weight under rights dence basic constitutional impairs dis- as much as invidious just Fourteenth Amendment race ... factors such as upon criminations based district- and that legislative economic state status”;12 representa- the same number of schemes which ing give not be numbers constituents would unequal tives sustainable.13 constitutionally No. which fixes January 1964, 1, 9,
The Act at 209 divides the into state representatives number of as follows: districts on 200: based division by 56,597) ratio
(Population Colorado, Assembly Forty-Fourth 712, 377 84 U.S. S. General (1964). shall hereinafter be referred These eases Ct. states, following “Reynolds deal" with the The cases eases.” Virginia, Alabama, York, Maryland, respectively, Delaware New and Colorado. 568, 1362, Sims, Reynolds 84 S. Ct.
(1964).
[11] Ibid. Id. at Id. at 84 S. Ct. S. Ct. at 1384. at 1382.
448 Population No. Repre- Repre- per District District
County Total sentatives sentative No. 1 1 57,507 57,507 Philadelphia 2 61,722 123,445 1 50,896 50,896 1 52,246 52,246 2 59,033 118,067 1 59,203 59,203 2 52,519 105,037 1 66,017 66,017 1 68,833 68,833 1 53,550 53,550 1 59,483 59,483 3 55,648 166,944 1 54,497 54,497 1 50,616 50,616 1 53,563 53,563 1 51,055 51,055 2 49,299 98,589 1 65,622 65,622 1 64,956 64,956 1 53,986 53,986 2 57,140 114,280 1 42,761 42,761 1 64,982 64,982 1 48,898 48,898 2 68,630 137,260 2 60,105 120,210 1 51,906 51,906 Adams 2 68,772 137,544 1 Allegheny 1 50,690 50,690 2 1 49,644 49,644 3 1 49,413 49,413 4 1 47,301 47,301 5 2 132,115 66,058 6 143,605 71,802 53,515 53,515 111,365 55,682 *10 449 Population No. Repre- per Repre- District District County sentative sentatives No. Total Allegheny (Cont’d) 63,944 1 63,944
10 2 63,687 11 127,373 1 62,839 12 62,839 1 60,727 13 60,727 4 58,918 14 235,672 51,036 3 15 153,108 50,322 3 16 150,966 1 79,524 Armstrong 79,524 2 51,260 1 Beaver 102,521 2 52,213 2 104,427 1 42,451 Bedford 42,451 1 48,551 1 ' Berks 48,551 1 59,639 2 59,639 1 56,817 3 56,817 60,781 1 4 60,781 1 49,626 49,626 5 1 1 Blair 69,407 69.407 1 67,863 2 67,863 1 54,925 Bradford 54,925 4 59,226 1 Bucks 236,905 1 71,662 2 71,662 1 .1 58,819 Butler 58.819 1 2 55,820 55.820 1 56,756 1 56,756 Cambria 2 47,557 2 95,114 1 51,413 3 51,413 1 7,586 7,586 n Cameron 1 52,889 52,889 Carbon 1 78,580 78,580 Centre n 2 52,912 1 105,824 Chester 2 52,392 104,784 2 1 37,408 Clarion 37.408 1 81,534 81,534 Clearfield 1 37,619 37,619 Clinton 1 53,489 53,489 Columbia 450 Pa;
Opinion [415 of the Court. Population No. Repre- per Repre- District District County No. Total sentatives sentative Crawford 1 77,956 77,956 . Cumberland 1 1 62,193 62,193
:2 1 62,623 62,623 Daupbin 1 1 79,697 79,697
2 3 140,558 46,853 Delaware 63,658 63,658 255,556 63,889 233,940 58,485 *11 Elk 1 37,328 37,328 1 1 Erie 69,946 69,946
2 1 68,494 68,494 2 3 112,242 56,121 1 1 Fayette 56,971 56,971
2 2 56,184 112,369 1 4,485 Forest 4,485 1 1 44,617 44,617 Franklin 2 1 43,555 43,555 1 10,597 10,597 Fulton 1 39,424 39,424 Greene 1 39,457 39,457 Huntingdon 1 75,366 75,366 Indiana 1 46,792 46,792 Jefferson 1 15,874 15,874 Juniata 1 1 55,074 55,074 Lackawanna 1 2 56,369 56,369 1 67,164 67,164 3 1 55,924 4 55,924 1 1 61,055 Lancaster 61*055 54,326 4 2 217,304 1 1 53,353 53,353 Lawrence 1 59,612 59,612 2 90,853 45,427 Lebanon 2 1 108,347 54,173 Lebigb 2 2 119,189 59,594 1 55,300 1 55,300 Luzerne 1 2 56,124 56,124 451 Population No. Repre- Repre- per District District County sentative Total sentatives No.
Luzerne (Cont’d) 1 55,926
3 55,926 1 4 58,929 58,929 1 57,142 5 57,142 1 63,551 6 63,551 1 51,014 1 51,014 Lycoming 1 2 58,353 58,353 1 1 61,209 61,209 Mercer 1 2 66,310 66,310 1 54,517 McKean 54,517 1 44,348 Mifflin 44,348 1 39,567 39,567 Monroe 2 49,722 1 99,444 Montgomery 2 64,117 2 128,234 2 67,280 3 134,560 3 51,481 4 154,444 1 16,730 16,730 Montour 55,325 55,325 Northampton 52,438 52,438 46,824 93,649 *12 1 50,422 1 50,422 land N orthumber 1 53,716 2 53,716 1 Perry 26.582 26.582 1 9,158 9,158 Pike 1 16,483 16,483 Potter 1 64,196 1 64,196 Schuylkill 2 2 54,416 108,831 1 25,922 25,922 Snyder 1 77,450 77,450 Somerset 1 6,251 6,251 Sullivan 1 33,137 33,137 Susquehanna 1 36,614 36,614 Tioga 1 25,646 25,646 Union 1 65,295 65,295 Venango 1 45.582 Warren 45.582 452 Population No. Repre- Repre- per District District
County No. Total sentatives sentative 1 2 Washington 108,030 54,015
2 2 109,241 54,620 1 Wayne 28,237 28,237 Westmoreland 1 1 64,337 64,337
2 1 58,224 58,224 3 1 60,717 60,717 4 1 57,659 57,659 1 5 49,827 49,827 1 6 61,865 61,865 1 16,813 Wyoming 16,813 1 1 54,504 York 54,504 64,744 64,744 57,176 57,176 61,882 61,882 apportionment An of the foregoing examination numerous that in quite indicates representatives clearly al- number of is representatives the same instances realize, We numbers constituents. unequal loted “that Court of the United States, does the legislative impossibility arrange practical is a number each one has an identical so that districts “mathe- or and that voters,” or citizens, residents, workable a precision hardly matical exactness district- present But the requirement.”14 constitutional requirement not meet does scheme ing than no less “demands Amendment which Fourteenth representation legislative state equal substantially . . .”15 . places of all all citizens, exhaustive, no means examples, vivid Several which exist disparities under gross illustrate popu- with a namely Clearfield, counties, Twelve Act. a population 79,- with Armstrong, of 81,534; lation population 78,580; Crawford, 524; Centre, *13 at 1390. 84 S. Ct. at id. at 1385. Ct. 84 S. at Id. awith of population popula- with a 77,958; Somerset, tion of with 77,450; population a of Indiana, 75,366; a with Venango, population with of 65,295; Bradford, population a of a of population with 54,925; McKean, 54,517; population with a of Car- Columbia, 53,489; population with a of a bon, with 52,889; Adams, population of assigned representa- are one only 51,906, each. tive Twelve with other Forest, counties, namely, a of population a of population with 4,485; Sullivan, with with 6,251; population a of Cameron, 7,586; Pike, population a of a of 9,158; population with Fulton, population with a 10,597; Potter, Juniata, 15,874; popula- awith with a population 16,483; Montour, tion of 16,813; a population with 16,730; Wyoming, a population Snyder, with 25,922; Union, population population with a 25,646; Perry, Fur- representative also one each. 26,582, assigned are in popula- thirteen thermore, ranging other counties, are tions from a low of to a high 46,792, 28,237, one each.16 These ex- representative also assigned of at amples existence by cursory analysis, show, in popu- differ widely least districts which thirty-seven equal representation. lation but are
In districts established Act, examining re- disparities apparent population that many of at least Legislature from an allocation sulted regard- in the each state county one representative that allocation This county. population less un- the heretofore assumption from resulted per county of one representative pattern questioned Arti- Pennsylvania Constitution, by the mandated was Court of the United Although cle II, §17. ap- that “a consideration recognized has
States some devia- justifying more substance to be pears Mifflin, Bedford, Warren, 44,348; 46,792; 45,582; Jefferson, 39,424; 39,457; Greene, Huntingdon, Monroe, 39,567; 42,451; 36,614; Clarion, 37,408; Elk, Tioga, 37,328; Sus Clinton, 37,619; 28,237. Wayne, 33,137; and quehanna, *14 population-based representation leg tions from in state political insuring islatures is that of some voice to sub divisions . . .,”17that Court has made it clear “permitting population-based repre deviations from governmental sentation does not mean that each local political separate rep given unit or subdivision can be regardless population.”18 Supreme resentation, Court of the United States too has stated: “Carried giving a scheme of far, at least in one seat house one political (for example, to each subdivision each county) easily many could in in a total result, States, equal-population principle subversion of the legislative body. in that especially This would in a true many large State where the number of counties is sparsely populated, of them are and the number legislative body being apportioned in seats not does significantly exceed [I] the number of counties.... f, clearly policy even as a result of a rational state according legislative representation political some population submerged controlling subdivisions, as the apportionment par consideration in the seats legislative body, right ticular then the all of adequately State’s citizens to cast an effective and weighted impaired.” unconstitutionally vote would be Reynolds v. Sims, U.S. Ct. 533, 581, S. (1964).
1391-92 legislative districting Careful consideration of the Pennsylvania Reapportionment scheme embodied in populations No. as well as the Act, of all of Penn- sylvania’s compels assignment counties, us to rule that regardless county, one seat each population, submergence population results as the con- apportionment trolling consideration and is offen- to the Fourteenth Amendment sive to the Constitution It of the States. must United therefore be concluded Sims, Reynolds 533, 580, 581, 84 S. Ct. (1964). 18 Ibid. the Act of 1 (which provides No. January 9, 1964,
for reapportionment Representatives), House of individu- to vote diluting substantially right als some districts when compared rights is' insuffi- constitutionally voters other districts, cient.
V As we have Court of indicated, *15 both reapportionment United States has held that on in a must be legislature houses bicameral based ap- The Act of No. population. January 9, portions State Senate into senatorial districts, follows: per ratio Senator :
(Population 226,387) No. of 1960 District Population County Senators No. 1
1 Philadelphia (part) 260,767 1 2 Philadelphia (part) 255,869 (cid:127) 1 251,415 3 Philadelphia (part) 1 4 Philadelphia (part) 241,032 1 Philadelphia (part) 236;148 5 1 242,667 Philadelphia (part) 6 1 266,242 Philadelphia (part.) 7 1 248,372 Philadelphia (part) 8 1 236,359 Allegheny (part) 37 1 (part) 233,003 Allegheny 38 1 241,633 Allegheny (part) 40 1 226,269 (part) 42 Allegheny 1 237,367 (part) Allegheny 43 1 233,086 (part) Allegheny 44 1 222,104 Allegheny (part) 45 1 (part) Delaware 9 255.888 297,266 1 (part) Delaware 26 1 (part) 262,794 Montgomery 12 1 (part) Montgomery 17 253.888 1 352,629 Westmoreland 39 1 346,972 Luzerne 20 1 308,567 Bucks 10 456 ofNo.
District 1960 Population County Senators No. 1 13 Lancaster 278,359 1 275,414 Berks 11 1 29 Lebanon 263,880 Schuylkill, 1 49 Erie 250.682 238,336 1 28 York 1 234,531 Lackawanna 22 1 227,604 Lawrence 21 Butler, 1 16 Lehigh 227,536 1 Dauphin 220,255 15 1 Washington 217,271 46 31 Perry, Mifflin, Juniata, 1
Cumberland 211,620 1 19 Chester 210;608 1 Greene Fayette, 208,764 206,948 47 Beaver Crawford 205,475 50 Mercer, 203,283 35 Cambria Armstrong, Jefferson, Indiana 201.682 201,412 *16 1 Northampton 18 24 Columbia, Lycoming, 1
Montour 179,586 1 Huntingdon 176,727 30 Blair, Potter, McKean, Warren, 25 1 Cameron
Clinton, 161,787 1 Clearfield 160,114 34 Centre, Northumberland, 27 Snyder, 1 155,706
Union Bradford, Susquehanna, 23 Sullivan 1 Wyoming, 147,740
Tioga, Forest, Clarion, Elk, 48 1
Venango 144,516 Adams 1 Franklin, 140,078 33 Somerset 1 Fulton, 130,498 Bedford, Monroe, Pike, Carbon, 129,851 Wayne Examination of districts senatorial foregoing widely that, shows contain many they instances, of examples numbers of varying people. gross Some dis- The tenth disparities population can cited. 308,-
trict of consisting population of with a Bucks, with district of 567; twentieth consisting Luzerne, con- a of district population 346,972; thirty-ninth 352,629, of with a of sisting population Westmoreland, fourteenth represented are one each senator. and of
district consisting Monroe, Pike, Carbon, of population thirty-sixth with Wayne, 129,851; Somerset, Eulton, district consisting Bedford, district thirty-third with a population 130,498; a population Franklin and with consisting Adams, Elk, district consisting forty-eighth 140,078; a population with Clarion, Forest, Venango, Brad- district consisting the twenty-third 144,516; Sullivan, Tioga, Wyoming, Susquehanna, ford, represented are each a population 147,740, senators examples just In the cited, one senator. districts thirty-ninth twentieth, from the tenth, people more than two times many represent each other districts. each senators from as do Ct. S. Sims, In Reynolds Court of the United 1382 (1964), votes “if should provide a State said: States State should be two part given one of citizens weight or times the of votes five times, times, part of the hard- another could State, of citizens to vote ... right in the dis- be contended ly not been effectively had diluted.” areas favored legislative consideration entire dis- Careful the Pennsylvania scheme includ- tricting Senate, *17 districts which we have the only above, cited not ing requires us well, districts to conclude but other January No. 9, 1964, 2, provides which Act the of the Senate by di- substantially reapportionment for right to vote individuals some dis- the luting compared with, rights in other tricts when of voters the requirements Four- to of the fails meet the districts, teenth Amendment of the United to the Constitution States.
VI light In of Janu- conclusion that the Acts our ary constitutionally insuffi- Nos. are 9, 1964, 2, remedy given have much consideration the cient, we granted. of the Su- which should be preme Recent decisions it clear that Court of the States make United imminence it is for us to determine “whether the requires general utilization . . . elections the 1964 apportionment acts contained” those scheme following notwithstanding invalidity, ex- their as the cerpts indicate: appor responsibility legislative primary for
“Since legislature and since with the itself, tionment rests Maryland adequate General time exists Maryland Assembly feel courts need can act, only obliged action further affirmative to take if constitutionally legislature to enact a valid state fails timely apportionment legislative fashion scheme in a opportunity by being further afforded after circumstances under no However, do so. courts Maryland of members of the election the 1966 should pursuant permitted to be conducted Legislature plan. any existing unconstitutional We other judgment Maryland reverse therefore fur to that Court for Appeals, remand case proceedings inconsistent with the views stated not ther Reynolds opinion Mary v. Sims.” in our here Representation Fair Tawes, Committee land (1964). (Empha 1452-53 Ct. 1442, 84 S. U.S. supplied.) sis of both houses York New members all
“Since in November court be elected Legislature will equitable principles, acting must de- now under below, of the imminence of that because whether, termine
459 to York Legisla- election order the New give an valid ture to fashion a opportunity constitutionally desirable apportionment legislative would be plan, con- be permit legislators to the 1964 election of to pursuant or whether ducted to the existing provisions, of appellants’ under effectuation the circumstances the to in the election voice right weighted properly the legislators delayed beyond should not be state 633, 655, Inc. v. election.” U.S. WMCA, Lomenzo, (1964). 84 S. Ct. Colorado the in the apportionment
“Since seats comport requirements . . . with the Legislature fails below of the Protection the decision Equal Clause, opin- in our must what we said Beyond be reversed. on re- express questions
ion we no view Reynolds, present time. On remand, remedies at lating im- District Court must now determine whether re- minence of the 1964 elections primary general scheme apportionment that utilization quires per- in the constitutional be contained amendment or of those whether mitted, purposes elections, appellants’ Colorado are such that circumstances weighted votes for members adequately to cast right practicably can effectuated Legislature of the State Forty-Fourth General Lucas v. Assembly in 1964.” Ct. S. 1487-88 713, 739, Colorado, (1964). the Pennsylvania can- Legislature
It is obvious reapportion act to itself the short time properly not the election November before remaining 3, 1964, April primary election. We months after however, Legislature made an believe, do itself in reapportion 1963. Unfortu- effort earnest then without benefit of the it was views of nately, of the United Court States expressed in and without an interpretation cases Reynolds and relevant important provisions this disruption Constitution. Serious of or- derly state election processes governmental basic any functions would result from action immediate judicial tribunal restraining interfering normal at this operation of the election machinery late a rea- date. The should not be denied Legislature reapportionment sonable to enact new opportunity *19 election We therefore hold that 1964 legislation. of should and must be con- legislators Nos. ducted to the of pursuant January 9, Acts 1964, and 2.19 Under no circumstances, however, may previous improvement represent over These acts considerable legislation. hearing judge, findings fact, “The said: his of Apportionment apportionment prior to the last of the Senate May 449, 10, 1921, L. Act of P. Act aforesaid was under the 2201). by 26, 1923, (25 April L. Under Act P. P.S. amended of eight Philadelphia Acts, senatori divided into was said 1921-1923 ranged population districts, [sic] under 1921 statistics al which Philadelphia popula population percentage of to total district (8th (3rd. high district) to a of a low of tion from 15.6% 7.1% percentages district). total Philadel of district This imbalance successively figures phia population with each more marked became range figures, a from census is decennial census. Under (8th district).” district) high (3rd of to a low of 26.1% 2.5% percentages Act, imbalance of district this the 1964 Under (The per largely Philadelphia senator corrected. ratio has been by example, 50.) 226,387 11,319,366 For the third dis- divided is — population 251,415, while a of now has one senator trict with 248,372. population ex- Several other eighth of a has district Dis- amples were corrected are: in which imbalances of districts per 134,345 senator, population now 38, of a which had No. trict 40, per senator; 233,003 which population District No. of a has per population 241,633 328,712, a population now has a had population 109,140, 42, now had a senator; which No. District per senator; 226,269 No. District population of has a population 237,367 per 157,955, a now has population of a had population 338,549, now a which had senator; No. District popula- 233,086; No. which had a population District has a 222,104. population of 509,886, has now of- tion repre- Kepresentatives, per where ratio House In among members) (11,319,366 54,150 divided 209' is sentative many population 200), dis- population divided (if 56,597 examples can District Several cited: lessened. parities were 1966 election of members of Pennsylvania Legisla- tbe ture be conducted in- pursuant to a constitutionally valid plan.
Tbe task of reapportionment re- is not tbe only sponsibility tbe a function is also Legislature, wbicb can be best accomplished that elected branch of government. composition Tbe of tbe Legislature, tbe wbicb knowledge its from part members every tbe state bring its techniques its deliberations, gathering and other inherent information, factors tbe legislative make it tbe process, appropriate most for tbe body lines tbe into drawing state dividing senatorial representative expect, districts. We tbe General reap- will enact therefore, Assembly portionment legislation accordance with constitu- tional requirements.
VII In to prevent order undue confusion on part tbe *20 of those are of assigned reap- who tbe task primary compelled we feel to pro- discuss several portionment, of tbe Constitution of visions as as well Allegheny County, population per 29,883 2 in which had a of No. representative, population 50,690 per representative; now has a of Allegheny County, population in District which had a No. 3 of 38,804, population 49,644 per representative; now a of Dis- has Allegheny County, population in which a trict No. 15 had of 51,036 75,506, population per representative; of now has a District County, Allegheny population 74,465, in which had a No. 16 of 50,322 per County population representative; of Beaver now has a population popu- 76,152, had a of which now a District No. has 51,261; County, in No. 2 a of District Bucks which had lation 139,293, population population 71,662; now has a of District of population Philadelphia County, 36,459, which had a of No. 26 60,105; County, population of District No. 1 in a Chester now has 49,034, population 52,912; population now has a a of of had which County, population in2 Chester which had a No. while District population 52,392; 80,787, a and has District No. now population County, 90,026, a had a which now has Delaware 58,485. population of upon opinion aspects to filed comment certain by the district court. Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article II, §16, provides: “The to relates senatorial districts, fifty State shall be districts divided into senatorial equal compact contiguous territory nearly and as population may be shall and each district be, containing county entitled to elect one Senator. Each population or shall be entitled one more ratios one for each and an additional Sena- Senator ratio, surplus population exceeding tor for a three-fifths separate county a but no shall form a district ratio, except contain ratio, unless shall four-fifths a adjoining one each entitled to where counties are assigned county may or more when such Senators, exceeding one- than a on less four-fifths Senator county unless no shall be divided ratio; half of county city or or more No entitled to two Senators. exceeding separate representation be entitled to shall No ward, number of of the whole Senators. one-sixth township borough, formation shall be divided ascertained senatorial ratio shall be a district. The population by dividing of the State the whole fifty.” number popula- fully §16 embraces sentence first Supreme expressed by principle Court of
tion Reynolds cases. Constitu- The starting United States point population make intention tion’s controlling districting in senatorial criterion mandatory. acknowledges It what manifest States has also acknowl- of the United *21 arrange practical impossibility edged, it is a “that each one so that has an identical legislative districts pro- by or or citizens, voters,”20 residents, number districts “should be near- viding senatorial as that Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577, S. Ct. (1964).
ly equal population phrase may as be.” But this permit cannot and must not be construed to substan- right tial dilution of to vote. It our that view when §16, construed as a that Senate demands whole, apportionment legislation respect county lines political (such lines other subdivisions wards, as boroughs, townships), possible, insofar as without doing population principle violence to the enunciated §16 the first sentence of and also the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Su- preme Court of the United has said: “A State States may legitimately integrity desire maintain political possible, various provide insofar as subdivisions, compact contiguous territory
for districts designing apportionment legislative scheme. may Valid Indis- considerations underlie such aims. regard political any districting,
criminate for without boundary subdivision or or lines, natural historical open partisan may be little an more than invitation to gerrymandering. . . . Whatever of accom- the means objective overriding plishment, the must substantial be population among equality so the various districts, equal any approximately citizen is the vote any Reyn- weight that of other citizen the State.” olds Ct. Sims, S. 533, 579, (1964). §16
We that Article therefore, hold, II, requires Pennsylvania Constitution re- senatorial apportionment legislation integrity must maintain the political other of counties and as subdivisions, insofar provide compact possible, must districts subject always territory, contiguous overriding to the objective that such and mandate districts shall be “as population may equal nearly be.” We em- must any political necessary, phasize if that, subdivision or may be divided combined in the forma- subdivisions population principle where of districts cannot tion satisfied. Furthermore, the number otherwise *22 per political may limited senators not subdivision be prin- equal-population if such limitation violates the ciple. Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article II, §17, pro- Representatives, which relates to the House of Representatives vides: “The members the House of apportioned among a shall be the on several counties, population by dividing ratio State obtained the the by census as ascertained United most recent States Every containing county than two hundred. less every representative full five ratios shall have one representative sur- and an when the additional ratio, plus county have each shall exceeds half a but ratio; containing representative. Every county at one least representative for five ratios more shall have one Every population every city containing full ratio. equal proportion separately to a its ratio shall elect representatives county in which allotted to rep- Every city than four entitled more is located. every county having hun- over one resentatives, dis- divided into dred thousand inhabitants shall be compact contiguous territory, dis- each tricts representatives proportion accord- trict elect its population, ing no district shall but elect more to its representatives.” than four §17 accord the first sentence of is in clear that
It is requirements It of the federal constitution. equal-population principle expressly recognizes as apportioning controlling factor House the Representatives. population Division of supplies “a ratio” and a start- hundred, two state point of districts. In contrast ing in the construction “fifty provides fixed for a number, §16 i.e., with each district “entitled to districts” senatorial precludes nothing §17 estab- Senator,” elect one Representatives consisting House aof lishment provided, of members, course, hundred two than more observed. rule equal-population apportionment should requirement inten- an signifies counties further several among counties and to utilize respect tion to lines county con- maximum extent to the representation *23 units Indeed, principle. the equal-population sistent with the that considered a demands when as §17, whole, respected be political of all subdivisions boundaries population overriding not in conflict with the when coun- that require interpreted It must be principle. joined if small necessary,
ties with populations, purpose electing other counties for the with no provision that a We hold representative. sharing coun- or combination the division prohibits §17 population the in where the formation districts ties otherwise be satisfied. principle cannot
VIII sought district court opinion Although laid down requirements of the anticipate some United Court of the of the recent decisions respects material feel that it differs some we States, deci- controlling contained those from the views runs opinion district court’s Throughout sions. representation if is equality that there the theme hand the one of counties on rural groups as between Penn- then other, of counties on urban groups With constitutionally.21 apportioned will be sylvania dis- this Unconstitutional agree. cannot theme we or rural irrespective of the exist may crimination overrepre- or underrepresented character urban reapportion it task is Those whose district. sented as- their approach must Legislature cre- are to they that understanding signment equal population nearly are as ate districts practicable. as is requi- federal constitutional as a that holding
“By appor- must be legislature of a state houses both site inequalities may so, course, exist be This, not since themselves. districts rural urban tween
tioned on population Equal we mean that basis, Protection Clause hon- requires that a State make an est and both good faith effort to construct districts, population houses its of equal legislature, nearly as is practicable.” v. 377 U.S. Sims, 533, Reynolds 84 S. Ct. 577, 1389-90 (1964). the district court
Furthermore, announced not would invalidate unequal representation resulting from use of the county as a provided district, from norm disparity exceed one-half does not a ratio. In our rigid the establishment of a view, mathematical evaluating standard is inappropriate appor- constitutional validity a state legislative tionment In Roman scheme. Sincock, Ct. S. 1470 n.21 Su- n.21, (1964), preme Court pointed out that the lower court in that *24 case had suggested that population-based variance iy2 ratios smaller than to 1 com- would presumably port with minimal constitutional while requisites, ratios excess thereof would de- involve necessarily viations from population-based apportionment too ex- treme to be constitutionally sustainable.
said: “Our affirmance of the decision below is not
approval
meant
to indicate
of the District Court’s at-
tempt
to state
mathematical
the constitu-
language
of
permissible bounds
discretion in
tionally
deviating
apportionment
population.
from
In our
according
does not
problem
view
lend itself to
such uni-
any
and it is neither practicable
form
nor desira-
formula,
to establish
mathematical
rigid
ble
standards for evalu-
validity
the constitutional
a state legislative
ating
scheme under
Protection
Equal
apportionment
the proper judicial
is to as-
approach
Rather,
Clause.
particular
under
circumstances
whether,
certain
individual
State whose legislative ap-
existing
there
at
has been a
issue,
is
ad-
portionment
faithful
population-based
plan
representation,
a
herence
only
minor deviations
occur in
may
recog-
such
nizing
any
certain factors that
from
taint
are free
supplied.)
(Emphasis
arbitrariness or discrimination.”
Finally,
opinion
court declared
the district
voting power
that
is a
there
discrimination in
when
legisla-
may, by
arrangement
voters
reason of the
rep-
tive
or
four
vote
or even
districts,
two,
three,
voting for
are
while others
restricted
resentatives,
only.
appears
opinion
Language
one
in the
Reynolds,
cases,
Chief Justice Warren
and other
presence
dis-
indicates
multi-member
some
legislative
per
in one
unconsti-
tricts
house
not
se
composed
single-mem-
body
tutional: “One
be
could
ber
other
have at least some
districts while the
could
Reynolds
U.S.
multimember
v.
districts.”
Sims,
(1964).
84 S. Ct.
533, 577,
1362,
“Single-member
may
one
the rule in
districts
might
achieve
while another State
desire to
State,
flexibility
creating
floterial
multimember or
some
districts.” Id. at
“We at-large provide which legislators for the of a number election political county, any from subdivision, a Forty-Fourth constitutionally are defective.” Lucas Assembly 731 n.21, General Colorado, (1964). n.21 84 Ct. S. multi- we do not believe that the creation of
While Federal member districts of would violate the itself, particular simply because the voters Constitution justified by population) (where would vote district *25 representatives in more while another for or those two believe for a lesser we do number, vote district would single-member legislative which creates scheme a that arbitrary in districts an and multi-member districts objectionable. agree We would with be manner would any that in the absence of however, court, the district (historical justification otherwise), such reasonable gerrymandering might districting for the result be advantage in arbi- that would be partisan and, event, light capricious. In of the constitutional trary and pitfalls inherent such it would a districting scheme, prudent apportion- be more approach the matter valid ment unless by setting up single-member districts the crea- require reasons exist which compelling tion of multi-member districts. some
Our of the relevant interpretation provisions such Constitution makes Pennsylvania only mandatory Fourteenth are in with requirements as harmony States. to the Constitution of the United Amendment Legis- complex the difficult and task of hope We in this out will be clarified set by guidelines lature cases. opinion by as well as Reynolds that expectation that it our indicated is We have enact fashion Legislature proceed timely will constitutional conform to laws which reapportionment if however, We must requirements. recognize, fashion, to act a timely fails Assembly the General ac- affirmative to take obliged necessary be we shall 1966 election of tion insure constitu- to a pursuant conducted be will legislators responsi- our Proper for plan. regard valid tionally matter of this jurisdiction to retain compels us bility action.22 pending legislative constitution- enact a fail to the Legislature
Should practi- as soon reapportionment plan valid ally take we shall September than not later but cal, then appropriate light may action as such situation. existing opin- in accordance with this retained
Jurisdiction ion. Opinion
Concurring Chief Bell: Mr. Justice Justice Rob- Opinion able very in the I join I im- am the Court. However, written erts has districting legislative entire for the new scheme Since County, devised accordance including must be state, Bucks unnecessary outlined, reach for us to principles have we intervenors. raised specific issues *26 hope pelled express in the faint additional views Supreme the one or more of the Justices change may thereby or United States be induced Reapportion- viewpoint subject modify on their ment. question
I of Constitution- shall first discuss the ality point and then I believe namely, Court of the United States has overlooked— deprivation and vote and dilution of the voice, representation groups minority as a result reapportionment decisions. Court’s recent jus- reapportionment concept The and new questions congressional ticiability by and Courts of legislative redistricting, v. Baker commenced with apportion- which held that State Carr, U.S. 186, justiciable reapportionment presented a ment and question. was Carr of Baker v. The limited effect pointed Reynolds in out Chief Justice Warren intimated “In ... We 556: Baker 377 U.S. Sims, proper standards no to the constitutional view as apportion- legislative evaluating validity state of a ment scheme.” appealing slogan relied so often which is now person, enun
upon, namely, one was first “One vote”, Gray re and in v. Sanders, ciated page supra, Reynolds This 558. in v. Sims, iterated slogan meanings susceptible many different of so is person meaningless. Every reality is who that it is and qualified to one vote entitled, course, to vote is only; of different in scores matters, but one vote public Sena affairs, Government, business, practical elections and in in Presidential torial solely not based or decided on often is the result life, person of one sometimes vote arithmetic, many weightier important than the votes more opposed. “dilution” No contention of those of all practicalities of life. these alter can accompanying in the five Reynolds v. Sims
In Supreme Court of the United States decisions 14th Clause Protection Equal construing *27 States, the United of Amendment* to the Constitution by meant what expanded and the Court clarified in a that inter alia, It one vote”. held, “one person, apportioned must be each House Legislature bicameral with accordance (1) substantially or districted apportion invidious without (2) (a) and population; living of citizens dilution of the vote or (b) ment, political or district or one of the State part one others. compared with unit of the State, and supra; Mary v. Sims, Furthermore, Reynolds 1442; 84 Ct. 377 U.S. S. land Committee v. Tawes, and 381; WMCA, 372 U.S. Sanders, and Gray Ct. decid 1418; 84 S. Inc. v. Lomenzo, peo for the it was Unconstitutional effect, ed, one allot ple Legislature a State or a State Counties Representative or one Senator to each or even addi political though divisions State, or tional Senators were allotted to Representatives The divisions. populous political more Counties Col to the Electoral rejected any analogy also or to the of the United States —in lege Congress two (as everyone the Constitution allots knows) latter, Representative and at least one Senators each State It population. to each with regardless State that I am re therefore, heavy heart, compelled, Court of the United cent decisions parts of that certain Section and to hold States, II of the old (nearly) of Article century Section are Unconstitutional. Pennsylvania Constitution kind of Government and established the form Under grown prosper has Constitution, our our with rare people, and great, exceptions, and ous proud and happy have such a satisfied, been have Government. form of Republican * provisions incidentally and color tlie race of the 15th and Amendment.
It can be that no said decision accurately Supreme Court of hun last United States in the dred years has ever confused dismayed disturbed, lawyers Congressmen, Legislators, Governors, Judges, citizens revolution ordinary as has the novel and ary decision in the form The group cases. Reynolds scheme Government of the United States at various times has been the civilized admiration of the was created and based foundation world, upon the rock of intertwined, three yet separate, independent, its coordinate co-equal branches Government, inherent fundamental balances. concept checks and Under the Constitution of United (1) States Executive branch our administers Government *28 (2) “takes care that the be faithfully laws executed”.
The (and the Legislative including Congress branch, the of with State) each are vested Legislature solely the laws power the enact legislative power, to namely, and the The third legislation. (3) namely, branch, inter to power are vested with the and duty Courts, or pret and the laws —not to execute Constitution beneficial enact or or the revise laws Constitution, our system sometimes be. revered This, would checks of with basic fundamentals of its Government,* been recent changed and has radically balances, Court Supreme guise of the under which, decisions in the belief actions (and their interpretation in interest of our Country), and are the best decisions the Constitution of the and rewritten have amended and invalidated Constitutions United States Union. most of the States in Court declared Uncon- has, effect, Supreme and present invalidated outlawed the and
stitutional and State Congressmen, Representatives, allocation in espe- State nearly every Senators Union — * superficial Contrary thinkers and slo- commentators and to Country, IV, Article under Section Unit- of the gan-creators, our “Republican Constitution, [not Form a democratic] has ed States way of life. Government”, a democratic cially govern- bicameral those States which have Repre- Congressmen, or ment, base their allocations of County similar sentatives political State Senators on a or provision Consti- unit basis. no Under tution of the the Constitution United States nor of United is the Court of the super Congress super Legislature, nor is States a or a given right power or to amend or rewrite Constitution the United or the States Constitution power Pennsylvania. right That without is, slightest people of the United doubt, reserved Congress, Notwith- or to or States, to the States. lip right standing State a little service as to the of a Legislature districts into divide a State different different and also for the Senate and the House provided dis- or is no unfair there invidious terms— completely tricting no dilution votes—the geography, disregards history, and discards tradition, problems, in dia- and local differences local interests language, ideals in ideas and lects and customs, many parts In and also each State. each State derogation requires Con- the Court thereof, lieu and Representatives gressmen and State Senators solely on an arithmetical and selected be districted po- equal substantially population in each basis, i.e., political division. litical district *29 tragic been has results which we believe One of the newly majority by that Court’s is that this overlooked representative almost Government will form devised groups deprive minority effec- inevitably of a fair and princi- legislative representation halls of their in tive problems particular their and ples, traditions, customs, preservation cher- of their and solutions, desired only be way Their interests will not life. ished practical frequently com- they in effect, bewill diluted, ignored. pletely and so different from what far removed is so
This of the United have be people States in each State for a in lieved and cherished and on which have they their, or more based their Government and century this in that the words of Justice way life, Harlan Protection interpretation Equal brand new of the Constitu in the support Clause finds no and no home tion of “incredible”. the United States* and is ap- legislative unjust unjustifiable and
Surely, political gerrymandering as well as the portionments, in certain or in certain divisions of a political States prohibited can be declared Unconstitutional and State, just age-old without this wholesale destruction prevailed form has cherished of Government which in in due respect, State the Union. With nearly every isn’t the Court’s cure worse than the disease? They not imaginary. views and fears are
My my in in expressions are supported by public Congress, media press State and news Legislatures, our and most throughout importantly, Country, of the United States. Supreme Justices of the Court example: For
In Baker v. Justice Carr, 186, 267, Frank- characterized Opinion his dissenting furter reapportionment) subject (on Court’s decision our experience repudiation as “. . . a massive judicial novel past asserting destructively whole . . .” power Justice Har v. Sims, U.S., supra,
In Reynolds said 614- dissenting Opinion, (pages his lan, have Congress is incredible** would : “It 625) of the Fourteenth Amendment as ratification exacted * they (majority) logical, were would If the nearly every passed every nearly law have to hold not years by an appropriation last hundred uneonstitu- in the made unconstitutionally Congress tionaUy elected created unconstitutionally Legislature, and elected State are created an logic And how can an Unconstitu- and void? Unconstitutional Legislature statutorily Congress State an Unconstitutional tional elections? and Constitutional provide valid ** throughout, ours. Italics *30 State studied the would have price
the readmission, compliance Amendment, with the Constitutions of it. then violations disregarded would have language the are refuted by “. . . decisions today’s in- the and by Amendment construe they of the which enacted subsequently from ference be drawn fairly his- by refuted unequivocally Amendments. are They the from practice theory consistent tory un- Amendment of the Fourteenth adoption time til today. is that . decision consequence today’s
“. . The satis- may already handful of States which all but the or, the local District Court requirements the new fy authority blanket are given state may be, courts, apportion- supervise constitutional duty and the im- It is difficult Legislatures. State ment interference inappropriate intolerable and a more agine independent legislatures with the judiciary the States. inter constitutional in the name of . For when,
“. . Constitu to the something Court adds pretation, from excluded deliberately it, that was tion [*] should of what substitutes its view reality process.” amending so for General Assembly, v. Colorado In Lucas su- Inc. v. WMCA, Lomenzo, Ct. 1472 and 84 S. termed by Justice joined Justice pra, Stewart, Clark, “woefully decision reapportionment majority 1429-1431) put : “To (pages further said wrong” in all the history there is nothing plainly, matter which this constitu- supports decisions Court’s of this draconian pronouncement, Court’s rule. tional of most legislatures unconstitutional makes no the words support States, finds this or in decision prior in any Court, Constitution, * something may from the Constitu- “or subtracts add We tion.” *31 Union. Federal our
the political history 115-year of mark I these decisions all am convinced With respect, a when unhappy into that era step backward long a thought of Court were of the members this majority other each to have convinced themselves many by meas- to be were that the of the Constitution demands of their own notions ured not it but by by what says, at is today The rule announced political theory. wise of constitutional principles long-established odds with Protection Clause, under the adjudication Equal initiative individuality it of local stifles values Union which to of the Federal vital the character to create. of our Constitution genius was requirements “. . . the Court says Instead, any can be met of the Protection Clause Equal heavy- simplistic, State only by uncritical, arithmetic.” of application sixth-grade handed Justice In v. Sanders, Wesberry Har not : “I had 48) (pages said dissenting, 20-22, 42, lan, Court to when the expected day witness decision which of would render a the United States com constitutionality doubt on grave casts an It not Representatives. is of the House position today’s effect of that such is the say exaggeration Constitution Court’s holding The decision. elec either Representatives select
requires States ‘as composed in districts elections large tions at equal population places is practicable’ as nearly all of almost the members the seats jeopardy Representatives. House present validity decision impugns today’s . Thus,
“. . from Representatives States, election now House 37 members ‘constitutional’ a leaving sitting. which could be avoided not demonstration a
“Only a rendering Court decision the this justify would Ias see inescapably is to declare it, which, effect composition of a co- very defective constitutionally Government. branch of the Federal ordinate opinion only demon- not fails to make such Court’s logically de- face and on its It is unsound stration. historically. monstrably unsound right cre- which the The constitutional “. . . cloth. out whole ates manufactured judicial strikes relief this case “. . . The claim system of of our one of the doctrines at fundamental upholding separation powers. government, In attempts in a the Court that claim, reforms effect plainly has be, as can which the Constitution, field *32 process. exclusively political to the committed no than all other branches “This less Court, by .... The sta- bound the Constitution is Government, only depends ultimately bility not institution this gov- keep upon being branches of alert to the other its up- equally bounds but within constitutional ernment recognition own Court’s of the limitations on the on system.” in the constitutional functions Opinion dissenting in Cf. Justice also, Black’s 12 2d 908, U.S. L. Ed. Denno, 368, Jackson (page 934) York “I think that New : he said where all in full accord with held invalid is law here guarantees that Constitution and of the federal Court because invalid this not be held should improve Constitu on the the Court can that belief tion.” Opinion dissenting in Justice also, See Clark’s 445) (page :
Fay he said 372 U.S. where 391, v. Noia, releasing today makes an in Noia Court But the “. . . only ‘abrupt the Constitution and not break’ disrupting past decisions, its also with but statute minds so foremost of federalism balance delicate important uniquely Founding and so Fathers enforcement.” of law field Opinion Concurring in his Justice Frankfurter, (1958), 356 U.S. States, 165, v. United in Green 193) (page : said we that of Mr. Justice Brandéis
“The admonition never should branch of the Legislature not a third are be disregarded.” has what foresaw prophetically
Justice Jackson happened when, now actually in Brown v. 344 U.S. Opinion Allen, a Concurring 535) he said : (page (1953), has been Court also has this
“Whatever intended, that impression judiciary an much generated that precedents and authorities regard obsolete, meant no mean what have longer they always words princi- to the no fixed the law knows profession, ples.” Opin-
Compare Justice Stewart's also, dissenting 2d ion in Escobedo v. 12 L. Ed. Illinois, 478, deci- where he said (page 988) majority its “Supported sion was no than stronger authority perverts own and that “the Court those rhetoric”; precious guarantees.” constitutional Arti
To Section 16 and Section summarize: II Constitution of and the Act cle PS No. P. L. (1S63) of January 9, 1964, creation are Unconstitutional. The (Supp. 1963), §2221 matter Districts* is a Legislative Senatorial *33 num for the and not for the Courts. The Legislature in experience and composition the ber, Legislature far than greater this field is the Courts, of “apportionment are not devoid only powers” but far facilities and far have fewer less are resources and than a far less qualified Legislature.
I require Legislature would of Pennsylvania Constitutionally a valid plan enact of reapportionment as but not later practical, as soon than September Reapportionment The new 1965. Act provide should as follows: substantially “The State shall be divided * Districts, Congressional I, under and Article Section States, authority Constitution the United virtue of from Congress, fifty compact contigu-
into senatorial districts of prac- population territory nearly equal as ous as is one ticable and each district be to elect shall entitled period years. who shall serve for a of four Senator, political County No or subdivision shall divided practicalities formation of a district unless the compel such division. Representatives
“The House of shall be elected period years. purposes representation two For Representatives, in the House of di- State shall be legislative compact into vided con- districts tiguous territory representatives and the number of nearly in each district shall be determined on as practicable equal population is cept an Ex- ratio of basis. representative,
when entitled to more than one no County shall be divided in the formation a district practicalities compel unless such division.” requirements foregoing necessarily subject are any change or modification or clarification of views mandates United Court of the ju In States. this Court should retain meantime, subject apportionment risdietion matter of * reapportionment. * Maryland As Chief Justice Warren said Committee v. Tawes, U.S., supra, page applaud willingness at 674: “We jurisdiction of state courts to assume and render decision in cases involving challenges legislative apportionment to state schemes. However, determining validity apportionment of a State’s
plan, applicable the same federal constitutional are standards litigated whether the matter a federal or a court.” state
Stern Estate.