*1 Plaintiffs, al., et BUTTERWORTH Oliver DEMPSEY, Governor
John of Grasso, Connecticut, Secre Ella T. Connecticut, Don tary the State Irwin, of the State Treasurer J. ald Thatcher, Raymond Connecticut, S. Connecticut, Comptroller of the State of
Defendants. No. 9571.
Civ. District Court
United States D. Connecticut.
Feb. 1964. Law;
Findings Conclusions of Fact and Judgment; on Form Memorandum Judgment; on Mo- and Memorandum by Towns of Franklin Intervene tion to March 1964. Filed .and Salem April 2,
Judgment Amended
.Judgments Affirmed June 1913, 1918. S.Ct. See *3 Keefe, Gumbart, Corbin, Donald F. Tyler Cooper, Haven, Conn. & New (William L. Felstiner Milton P. F. Gumbart, Tyler
DeVane, Corbin, & brief), Haven, protection Cooper, Conn., guaranteed by on the New laws plaintiffs. Fourteenth Amendment the Constitu- tion of the United hold that States. We Conn., Mulvey, Atty. M. Harold Gen. districting the Senate Conn., Hartford, for defendants. apportionment of the House so debase Jr., Alcorn, Alcorn, Bake H. Meade voting plaintiffs Hartford, Smith, Conn., Prof. well & choice of the members of both houses Haven, Moore, Conn. James Wm. New in an result invidious discrimina- (Norman Parsells, Conn., Bridgeport, K. against plaintiffs thereby tion who Shulansky, Shulansky Ralph & M. equal protection denied the of the laws. Conn., Cohn, Hartford, Ralph El G. liot, Alcorn, Smith, Hart Bakewell & THE PARTIES TO ACTION *4 Conn., ford, brief), on the for interven and are ten Plaintiffs resident citizens Pinney, Tyler Patterson, ers A. J. Searle and voters of Connecticut from six urban .Jr., Pope, Jr., P. Frederick and Peter towns,1 suing for themselves suburban .Mariani. similarly and other Connecticut voters Parskey, Conn., Hartford, in- Leo situated. Bailey. M. iervenor John Governor, are the Secre- Defendants SMITH, Before J. JOSEPH Circuit Comp- State, tary and Treasurer Judge, TIMBERS, and ANDERSON and Connecticut, offi- in sued troller of Judges.* District capacities particularly re- cial and holding spect duties in the to their Judge: TIMBERS, District general and to the elections certifying such elections. in the results of QUESTION PRESENTED addition, Secretary State, in presented question whether capacity here in her as Commissioner sued Assembly as now representing General state and all of Elections equal plaintiffs charged municipal denies constituted officials election * originally designated epilogue hear lib- a and The Court luminous an as erating loved, law, this case consisted he determine in the and life Judge led, lived, CLARK E. it as CHARLES and we include late Circuit and Judges opinion Appendix and ANDERSON indicate District and Judge guidelines fol- After the death of intends to TIMBERS. this Court 13, 1963, formulating Circuit CLARK on December its decree. low desig Judge SMITH was J. JOSEPH Butterworth, Miriam Butterworth 1. Oliver Judge place to serve nated (Town of West Rains Wallace and S. Corp. (See Ayrshire CLARK. Collieries District); Hartford, Fifth Senatorial States, v. 1168, U.S. S.Ct. United Jacobson Beach and Charles Robert (1947); cf. Gen 91 L.Ed. Manchester, (Town Fourth Senatorial Mail eral Electric Co. Masters Co., Order George (Town District); of East Lucas 6S1, (2 682 n. 244 F.2d Cir. District); Hartford, Fourth Senatorial originally 1957)). case Since the was Bradley Norman Morehouse and John solely evidence, on submitted written Twenty-fifth Fairfield, (Town Sena presently heard Court as constituted has Maclay (City District); David S. torial and the case on the record determined Bridgeport, Twenty-first Senatorial original submitted on the trial before the (City District); E. Albert Holland Court, together transcript with a District). Hartford, First Senatorial therein, plaintiffs arguments in oral census, on two of Based having agreed pro tervenors to this plaintiffs reside the cities with cedure. (Hart- largest populations in the State death, Judge Prior to his CLARK had 156,748), ford, 162,178 Bridgeport, written, filed, proposed but had not has two each of which opinion Judge Court. TIMBERS House; two in the heaviest reside opinion, had voted concur in while populated senatorial in the State districts Judge ANDERSON had voted to concur 175,940 173,- (Twenty-fifth, Fifth, part Judge part. to dissent 953), each of which one senator has opinion may regarded CLARK’S well be the Senate. legislative ap- general holding invalid elections Court declare duties system portionment legislature. embodied state constitution. and voters were resident citizens Other including intervene, permitted to JURISDICTION Republican and Demo- chairmen of jurisdiction over This Court who Central Committees cratic State parties pur subject matter individ- permitted to intervene
were
1988 and
suant to 42 U.S.C. §§
political
uals,
leaders.
not as
1343(3)
(4).
U.S.C. §
PARTIES
THE
CLAIMS OF
question
draws into
Since the action
(i)
complaint
seek
in their
Plaintiffs
provisions
and Constitu-
of the statutes
declaratory judgment
constitu-
that their
statutory
special
Connecticut,
tion
impaired
the mal-
tional
judges was con-
court
district
of three
apportionment2
houses
of both
pur-
the case
vened to hear
determine
injunctive
Assembly;
(ii)
relief
General
2281-2284.
suant to 28 U.S.C. §§
elections,
general
against
holding
large, to the Gen-
other than elections at
AND RECORD
HEARING
the House
in 1964 until
eral
hearing on October
held a
reapportioned and the Senate
has been
22, 1963,
at which counsel were heard
*5
plaintiffs’
impair
so as not
redistricted
summary judg-
partial
the motion for
rights;
(iii)
fur-
and
constitutional
the merits of the case.
ment as well as on
may
just
equitable.
and
relief as
ther
presented.
No oral evidence was
pressed
filed,
the
at
Plaintiffs also
consists of
The
the Court
record before
summary
partial
hearing, a motion for
stip-
pleadings;
the
facts established
claiming
only
judgment
this time
the
by requests
for admissions
ulation
prayed
declaratory judgment
36, Fed.R.Civ.P.;
pursuant
Rule
complaint.
affidavits.
and at
in their answer
Defendants
Judge
After the death of
CLARK
respect
hearing
position with
took no
the
designation
Judge
his
the
SMITH
case but did
to the
issues in the
critical
agreed
pláce,
that
the
counsel
comply
request
opportunity
with
the
should hear and determine
case
any decree entered
the Court.
including
transcription of
this record
generally
Bailey supports
Intervenor
arguments,
oral
the
which course
claiming
plaintiffs,
mal-
position
the
followed.
been
apportionment
and House.
Senate
both
THE SENATE
malap-
Pinney
admit
The
intervenors
Under
Connecticut Consti
the
Senate;
portionment
the
but
adopted
tution
in 1818
amendments
vigorously
apportionment of
that
assert
thereto,
consists of a bi
the
upon
principle of
House based
Assembly.
upper-
cameral General
using
representation,
towns as
unit
house,
Senate,
comprised presently
is
complies
units,
the Constitu-
local
with
of 36 members.
violate
does not
tion of Connecticut and
States,
adopted
Third,
5,
so
Article
Section
the Constitution of
United
long
prin-
1901,
on the
the minimum number
is based
raised
the Senate
24,
ciple
equality
population.
maximum to-
The Pin-
districts to
Senate
general redistricting
ney
filed,
was
did not
36. The last
intervenors also
Assembly
press
hearing,
di-
motion to dismiss
in 1903
General
at the
when the
A
complaint
into 35 districts.
thir-
failure to state a cause
vided the State
(Greenwich)
ty-sixth
add-
action, questioning
of this
district
was
apportionment
opinion
Strictly,
correct
terms
“dis-
in this
“apportion-
malapportionment
tricting”
of both houses
Senate
Assembly.
redundan-
ment” of the House. To avoid
General
occasionally
cy, however, we shall
refer
n ed
mandatory
provision
addition of
in 1941. Aside from the
that
Article
thirty-sixth
Third,
only
1941 and some
district
Section
.the
which allows
that
n shifting
Haven,
of boundaries
New
session of the General
next
redistricting
completion
after
there has been
valid
United
States
than
since
more
census to redistrict
Senate
the Senate. Cahill
legislative pro-
years, despite
Leopold,
numerous
7Q3
643,
equal protection
put
(1950),
clause
tion to opinion with the ad- journed Court, acting problem. to consider: without pro- We therefore guidelines by feel (a) constrained to indicated The delay ceed without redistricting further Judge with the CLARK for schedule outlined to reapportioning above formulate the Senate legis- decree, prompt execute our bring absent so both the House as to continue, action. lative We shall how- within federal constitutional ever, hope legislative to for action. And dimensions.25 if at time the Governor should call (b) advisability of the Court’s The Assembly special the General into session master, appointing special purpose formulating plans pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. Rule reapportion redistrict Senate and hearings P., hold in- under House, Assembly and if General structions respect the Court gives satisfactory evidence to this Court to the details redis- bring repre- its intention to act to tricting reap- the Senate sentation in both houses within federal portioning and to the House re- dimensions, gladly constitutional stay we shall port to the Court with reason- proceedings further in this Court to promptness thereon. able give legislature oppor- a reasonable feasibility utilizing (c) tunity perform duty appropriate computer electronic rightly legislature perform. technique partisan- to minimize In this connection we renew the invita- redistricting ship in the and re- Judge tion which Clark extended on De- apportionment ordered cember 1962: Court.26 “And we trust court can also (d) advisability proce- of some co-operation count on the and as- assuring reap- periodic dure sistance Chief Executive portionment of the General As- Assembly reaching the General sembly keep currently with- for the correct solution. Indeed we in constitutional dimensions. happy that, under the settled following, principles of law we are stage (e) proceedings organs we need not view the state which the decree should be made government giv- adversaries appealable. mandates, en harsh can instead For obvious we reasons would co-operative look for their effort prefer necessary redistricting to have the solving probably toward the most reapportionment Senate governmental problem difficult of our direction of done under the age.” the General than the Court. express appre But the hour is And we cannot late. We wish to our many unusually blind years ourselves the deadlock ciation for the assistance able within the over the is we all received from counsel for year Hardly ago parties. papers, sue. this Court invited Their briefs other p. Appendix, supra Dempsey, 25. 773. 27. Valenti note at 913. Hess, For Weaver A Procedure Ibid, Development Nonpartisan Districting: Computer Techniques, Yale L.J. 288 (1963). *12 TGCí- although facts, arguments, comparable on the oral as their as well 296, Sweeney Notte, R.I., extraordinarily-.high 183 A.2d v. order of an been legis immeasurably the Rhode Island invalidated helped which the Court and have closest, perhaps confident that lative structure areWe case. a difficult lower there unit since the basic for continued on counsel count we can it was more house was also town. There even competent assistance legislature suggested up dis that the set lie aspects of this case which difficult composed groupings counsel, tricts especially invite We ahead. towns, join so size smaller increase the parties others concerned and all proportional representa problems the House that approaching the the Court in accomplished rise, gives today tion retain could be while decision our ing representative towns, particular for each town. not as residents of im latter alternative would of course be primarily as residents of Connecti-
even great practical in our case because of the cut, Ameri- foremost first and as body required increase of members already composed in a federal cans—resolved fundamental guarantees of 294 Dis members. shall be se- constitutional can, however, undoubtedly by prompt applica- tricts de practical cured signed representation points to assure tion in our State. rural, of electors, view and suburban urban separate points CONCLUSION if indeed such weight exist, giving equal of view while granting judgment plaintiffs Let enter to the votes individual electors in the declaratory judgment prayed for in membership choice of the of the House. complaint; denying plaintiffs’ mo- equality pop I take it that while exact summary judgment partial tion for every representative ulation of or sena moot; denying Pinney inter- required, torial district is not and some venors’ motion to dismiss for failure to weighting room remains for tors than other fac (cid:127)state cause of action. population, contiguity such as compactness, deviations from sub Judge SMITH, J. JOSEPH Circuit equality stantial exceptions, to be (concurring). showing necessity and the therefor Judge opinion TIMBERS’ I concur in plain. convincing showing No neces only a brief statement. would add .and sity has been made. would I therefore great disparity the effective between general pro follow the outline for relief choosing legislators weight of voters posed by Judge TIMBERS and the late towns districts and in different senatorial Judge CLARK. against a marked discrimination (cid:127)shows larger towns of in the districts and those APPENDIX 186, Carr, population. 369 U.S. Baker v. [OPINION OF THE LATE CIR- (1962) 691, .82 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. CUIT JUDGE CHARLES a discrimination established that such E. CLARK] equal question deprivation of raises a protection the laws in violation Judge. CLARK, Circuit Fourteenth Amendment the Constitu- Carr, 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. Baker it is the tion of the United States 663, opened (cid:127)duty new era if 7 L.Ed.2d courts to resolve the federal judicial responsibility hold- in its federal ing state fail and the courts here, showing assertion constitutional that an do so. On the made right by impaired malapportion- compelling so a dis- reasons for wide according repre- having shown, ment the court crimination been legislatures presented sentatives state must find that the is in- discrimination justiciable issue, passed upon to be vidious and a the constitu- violation of plaintiffs. to that deci- courts. Prior tional No case federal yet fully sion it had held or assumed been decided in the other states 767' “political question” tion this were allowed court. Juris this not to be was a diction judiciary. is clear under considered The an- court however, decision, U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C. §§ § nouncement 4). 1343(3, brings brought response Since the action forth immediate question country, statutes well as constitutional *13 from all as voters over the so that provisions already State, special statu some 44 the 50 actions 39 of tory judges pending court of three states has been con are to test the constitu- by legislative Judge tionality vened apportion- order of the of of Chief state Circuit, pursuant the ments. This to 28 action tests U.S.C. §§ the Connecticut system seq., 2281 et to as hear the case. instanced in both Houses of the Assembly. Connecticut General It is not plaintiffs complaint make the merely strange territory new and into allegations specific malapportionment we, in common with our federal and the House. Inter- both Senate judicial colleagues generally, must now Repub- Pinney, venors chairman venture; responsi- but it is an awesome Committee, lican and three- Central State bility, the difficultiesand uncertainties of malapportionment, associates admit fully which we are that, conscious. But it vigorously Senate, assert but quite is; upon clear that it is one which we the election members of legal House cannot turn our backs. Bailey, and valid. chair- Intervenor man plaintiffs Democratic Central The ten are from voters six Committee, malapportionment admits State, different urban towns1 su- essentially joins ing similarly both Houses for themselves others plaintiffs. parties forces with situated, they The who assert that are denied suggestion equal protection guaran- followed the of the court of the laws agree which, to by indeed, on the teed the Fourteenth Amendment to facts— expert well by known—and to such the United States Constitution reason rely they and other malapportionment, evidence consequent form, against written so that the case has them, repre- discrimination fully been on submitted the merits and sentatives in both the Senate and the argument supplementing full oral Representatives. had The defend- presentation briefs. has been of ants are the Governor of the unusually high order; high including other and the court officials, the Secre- express tary deep State, wishes its sense of obli- who is also the Commis- gation thoroughly counsel so sioner of Elections and who is sued carefully initiating ground-break- representative it into officials, of all state and ing territory. out, charged As it municipal, turns is- pertain- with duties sue ing comparatively here general becomes a holding nar- elections. although one, great importance; row sought judgment declaratory Relief is a appears although similar, it holding in somewhat plaintiffs’ constitutional though identical, far some, by form in malapportionment violated all, pending not of the cases together of both Senate, elsewhere. the House and Pinney As injunctive intervenors, framed against holding relief may legally general is whether or not the House elections, than other elections large according choose its Senate and House principle,” what lying term the reapportionment until “unit re- is had will areas, long on town impair so as in one plaintiffs’ constitutional body, rights. Senate, here the there is Attorney followed General answered principle equality population. defendants, on behalf of the but the real burden Before to a considera- defense has been we turn detailed assumed petitions contention, tion well to intervenors whose of this it is state interven- Hartford, Fairfield, 1. The towns are 169th or fror¿_ East tionwise the 156th to the Hartford, Manchester, Bridgeport, largest West in the State. Haven, ranging popula- and New in size ground 5 al- 818, upon ground. Section appears common what only session of the General lowed respect there to the Senate First with following immediately Assembly tak- apportionment question that its ing Outside to redistrict. the census primarily population. This is based nothing been effort Third, this abortive established in Article was although legislative sixty years, done in Constitu- of the Connecticut Section dif- proposals been numerous. tion, the minimum number which raised following constitutional ficulties 24, and the maxi- of Senate Districts to obvious; in addition there formula are mum was to 36. Power redistrict appears been an understandable to have vested in the General conven- sup- Democratic leaders reluctance of ing completion next after the of United redistricting port while the Senate general States census. The last redis- *14 through Republican its on the House hold tricting was when the Gen- had Admittedly the rural vote continues. eral divided the into 35 malapportionment is now of Senate districts, becoming 36 in 1941 with the substantial.2 addition of the district of Greenwich. “regard provides
Section 5 that shall be it Turning find that we the House population districts, had to in the several largest state 294—the now numbers nearly equal that the same be as Hampshire. And one, except New house possible under the limitations this of representation malapportionment of section.” The limitations which follow striking upon population is based —in- always are that senatorial shall districts most extreme of the one is said deed contiguous composed territory, of Union, Town of Thus the of state. part neither the whole nor a of one coun- represent- 2 population with a of ty joined part shall be to the whole or a largest as the atives, number the same or county of another district, to form a Bridge- (162,178) and Hartford cities: for divided unless that no town shall be (156,748). resident port of a The vote forming purpose one more than of weighted thus Union is voter wholly An at- within the town. district heavily of a as the vote 424.5 times as tempt in 1953 to redis- of the This Hartford. voter resident and gen- striking disproportion out struck down is carried trict the was Senate through erally towns, more is the 169 Supreme Errors in fully Indeed footnote.3 illustrated Leopold, A.2d 141 Conn. 103 Cahill v. merely likely this to reverse seem Taking a state the 1960 census county restriction And the average situation. 2,535,234, population or par- complications. All the own 70,423. adds its But is norm for the 36 districts redistricting agree of the Senate ties average population of the five most hampering these be had without 175,940 should (ranging populous from districts 159,721 limitations. 144,160) or is down 226.8% average popula- norm; while the populous population of the most 3. The 10 populous districts least tion of the five 988,818, represents cities, towns and 39% 32,534) 21,627 up (ranging population of the total 28,722 of the norm. Nineteen or 40.8% representatives of the or elects 6.8% majority elected Senators —a —are number; population of the while the total having population Senatorial Districts repre- towns, 7,554, populous 10 least 811,242 the total state or 31.9% population and of the total sents 0.3% population. of the 36 districts Seventeen or elects 4.1% populations or more below have 25% having population Towns total. populations norm; districts have 301,485 the total elect or 11.9% norm, It etc. or more above 25% hun- One of the House. or a virtually be noted that seems should (119) 169 towns dred nineteen fairly equal impossible obtain districts per representative populations 25% limitations are to be if the constitutional (see note the “norm” or more below example, un- For Stamford is 8,623. observed. supra) towns have These derrepresented Waterbury 518,647 population over- 20.5% representatives, total, change attempts represented; but elect 194 doubt, towns, adoption as is substan- be little new formed after the can there conceded, equality popu- Constitution, tially that if should have one”. This provi- test House is is the lation to be the forerunner malapportioned. sion, grossly Third, The real de- Article Section 3. Two system Pinney intervenors comes modifications fense have been argument validity By in their for the made. constitutional amendment in every having principle.” 5,000 “unit town more than given representatives, was two while in the unit it should Now be noted requirement 1876 the was added that principle in what we must assume as its population new towns must of at purest representative form of one each 2,500 becoming least before entitled to of this town has never been the law State. representative. one always in a It has been diluted substan- way history sys- because of and because Thus it tial will be observed that the apportionment goes to achieve result tem of a theoretical is hard to dis- basis back two centuries without fundamental Going change history, populationwise, although back in our pro- cover. 1638-9, posals by Fundamental Orders of Section commissions and others for changes 8, provided representation in the uni- constitutional conventions legislature according *15 popula- cameral and otherwise have too been numerous to original change tion. The three towns Hart- note here. of there has And been no ford, Windsor, although 1876, and Wethersfield were to of kind since mal- apportionment according population send “four their Freemen” as their every Court, deputies steadily provision and General new has worsened. The many deputies were to repre- towns send “so that the towns retain shall meet, judge they explains why shall as the Court a reason- sentation had in 1818 proportion pres- able the number of Free- Union and 32 some other towns of population 5,000 in men that are towns.” Colo- ent the said still under have two Connecticut, 1636-1665, representatives, nial Records 44 while other towns of granted 20, 1662, population only similar 24. Charter of have one. The II, prohibition against pattern set the in exist- repre- Charles basic more than 2 today, providing per rep- ence that General sentatives town shuts off more large cities; should than have not more two resentation of the while grant persons representative from each town. Statutes of one more 1808, population Connecticut, 5,000 In 1698 the second when town attains a appor- increasing pattern constantly house, for house was added. The assures a as legislative possibility for the continued until does the tionment House 1818, adopted the Constitution in creation towns as soon as new new 3, provided III, entity 5,000. that in Article population Section attains a That existing why 294, should have present the House towns number is as com- representatives “as pared 1903, same number of 1959, and allowed; present practised and are at Twenty-seven representative House. as the best test 66% per repre- populations quality legislatures.” 169 towns This shows norm; or above the sentative more at and Vermont the lowest 25% 1,626,794 population of namely, have a total representation, House for 12% repre- of the total and elect above), 64.2% (actually 11.9, with indicated as of the total. sentatives 18.4% representation and Senate 33% 47% for Nov. In the New York Times respectively. are some smaller There Anthony pp. 1, Lewis Section representation, percentages as of Senate summary apportionment sit- has a Oregon is said to be in Nevada. 7.6% for each in each state. He adds uation country’s equitably apportioned most per- figures showing smallest state centage percentages state, for each of 48 with could elect that high, ranks house. Massachusetts in each house the members * * * percentages regard each house. “Experts of 45 for —a test practical Truly the mountain however, alterna- sense. turn to the When, we groaned groaned per town representative would have brought one claim of tive significant mouse.4 advance. forth a amade have not we support this historical has For it argued Pinney intervenors have generally outside none State, in fact game,” that this is but “a numbers states, Ver- Only other two the State. arguments system that lie representa- Island, have Rhode mont and deeper than statistics as we towns; these both tions quoted. We will do well to look at these litiga- pending system attack in is under reasons. put But we must first them in been it has Rhode Island tion—indeed the context of this actual case. And here Sweeney v. found unconstitutional. it must dealing noted we are not In New 296, 303. R.I., A.2d Notte, principles government, abstract representation York plaintiffs’ but with the claims that their districts; in our true assembly this is rights constitutional impaired. have been which, Massachusetts, neighbor, other way Our allowing American practical- high supra, has a pointed note out ly questions all legal to turn into cases representation. equality of record advantage narrowing at least the system would Accepting alternative bringing the issues rights individual slightly only re- change, would sharp focus, into however much it malapportionment. arrange, blur the prob- more remote facets each would Hartford Thus Union lem. So despotism even if rural is a each representative, so have one one, benevolent plaintiffs may never- weighted times 423.4 would Union vote theless deprives insist them of vote, instead heavy Hartford as the under the Fourteenth po- present. Thus 424.5 times as Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. proposals all urban rural veto tential *16 And we say are ap- constrained to that remain. would still plication principle the unit either pure its present form or in its possibility of Connecti- considered We have adaptation cut great results in such dis- ap- plan of House building reasonable a parities representation of voter in both only part rejecting a portionment the House and the Senate toas violate requirements the state plaintiffs’ rights. constitutional to so But this amounts constitution. disappointing to so little and would Pinney But since the intervenors have who expectations those the reasonable argued eloquence and with force indeed outright sought vindication for principle principles, unit or we hardly justify the re- as to their why think we should state not we have which pudiation constitution the state arguments persuasive found those even definitely represent. Thus as- it would proposition political as an abstract representative for plan a one sume governmental stripped or science. For 5,000 population and each town under support (which all historical we town of each give for two ambiguous) support found most or from slightly 5,000 over; this would or supposed analogy” (which “federal cities, but more favorable balance any materially point) not we do find in contention enough count not to norm, balf would have the plan over each reduce would assumed representation Hartford, 261, which 33, making same as by norm population Seventy-seven 8,623. over 30 theirs 9,714, times instead 16.7 norm. representative times the have one towns would each, 2. The would have while 92 Compromise,” ad- 5. The “Connecticut 9,000 having each and than towns less by Sherman, Roger vanced of two Sena- population total would about while national 16% tors each State Representatives Wood- elect a the House. House of reflected Southbury, slightly bridge was of course distribution of which may give represent precise the towns that Court answer comes by all, important minority or values us interests which will be awaited according likely in one of the which be conserved seems more to cus- should by given argument practice pressed tom its views will be Houses. adjudicated. experts affidavits hoc in all whose ad each case Hence four of Pinney delaying ground presented in- find we no our deci- have been lucidly adjudica- explained Supreme ain tervenors6 and is sion await deGrazia, Essay tions; them, on book we remain alert one shall of course Apportionment Representative suggestions help Gov- or to decision Against expres- quarter. ernment, 1963.7 these come from that persuasive of most sions of view others major two diffi- Now there seem us many adduced,8 and the nature can be argument presented. culties with the pending briefs in the cases filed several The first is that there seems coherent together Supreme Court, minority group opinion which the 169 arguments therein, represent— of at to the store add towns can be assumed nothing reasoning. comparable, example, at all course least theoretical Of Symposium Carr, adopted proposed A on Baker as a method (1962) ; prob- compromise 7-106 apportionment; Yale L.J. it was be- given specific point lem is in Baker v. and federalism to ob- tween nationalism Legislative Apportionments: approval Carr and A of a then tain constitution which Standards, system hung Problem of Yale L.J. in doubt. is thus not a It (1963), proposing any significance today; “a substan- for this State equal population moreover, delay tive af- the notable standard — Congress, particularly norm with limited deviations the re- fects Senate, quirement responsiveness suggest practical the un- does not rea- derrepresented interests for its emulation. within total sons process.” governing “Appor- Useful deGrazia, 6. Professors Alfred Malcolm Legislatures”: tionment of State A Re- Moos, Charles André Schenker and Wil- port Advisory on Commission In- Binkley. fred Ellsworth tergovernmental Relations, Dec. 1962. “ experts generate ‘Equal p. protection See These can own 67: presume, warm emotions. Cf. criticism, Essay laws’ seem to Professor would and con- deGrazia’s Apportionment political equity demand, siderations Representative Government, apportionment both houses argument University strictly of his New York in the State be based *17 colleague McKay population”; pp. Professor Robert B. on seq., and 60 and A24 et Analogy, 1962, “ground- in The Eederal as that the maximum allowable devia- unworthy by less and of attention” historical- tion from the State ratio obtained ly ; deGrazia, op. supra dividing also cit. total the the State 162, criticism, indicating by the as the in the number propaganda, legislative body only “the kind of combined wild should be 10%. jurisprudence wishing, and dubious that bipartisan is a continu- Commission Carr,” Baker ing body charged by been aroused v. studying statute editorial the in the National Civic making and recommendations in the field Review, Oct. on an based relations; of Federal-State-loeal is it joint address before a session of the members, up including made 26 6 League Municipal and Ameri- National the Congress, members of officers 3 can Political Science Association Branch of Eederal Executive the Gov- Rhyne, past president of S. the Charles ernment, Mayors, Governors, 4 4 3 State general Bar and American Association legislators, county officials, 3 elected and Mu- counsel National Institute of public ap- 3 proved members. Sixteen members Officers, nicipal Law who was of counsel recommendations, above the disagree- in the Baker-Carr case. Such preferred would have the addition to the experts among ments the indicate the quoted statement the words “unless difficulty problem seriousness and the directly people otherwise,” the determine upon the court is called to solve. special calling 2 filed concurrences for rigid terms”; a in “less statement and 8. In view of the it is wealth material this be seems to the intent of 1 other practical give not to more than selected concurrence, leaving outright only general good dis- references. There are dis- appearing cussions several articles sent. beginning or, indeed, hardly to more than the this union members to labor Republican por- the or Demo- our task and that more difficult the members try se- im- matters as tion of it lies before us we to as On such Parties. cratic highways plement curing appropriations this decision. Plaintiffs ask that for local adjourn proceedings quite com- we these for time are interests or their schools give likely opportunity the to to the to Governor petitive, we fear and this minority special problems; the and there call session most true of body opportunity sin- to allow objectives, than a the rather will be suggests redistricting experience plans for gle formulate In fact one. satisfy requirements. only upon which will constitutional view the that about negative suggestion accept expected ad- We are is the and can be consensus change. second, journing proceedings these some And opposing one of time, glad duty representative shall concept of a we to extend appears minority his or interest of if when support General one, Assembly disposed But a barren to function. limited and seems a town long declining importance of adding we sensible deadlock leg- years’ many issue, general state duration legislative over bodies separate in- last even lack of action at the session particular. The islatures are, delayed be, spring, we in this when action should towns terests vigorously represented rising very ex- chief case to await their Assembly. Clark, mayor first Mr. or the General As Justice officers: ecutive concurring Carr, Baker U.S. selectman, be. These case as the high- 186, 260, 691, 733, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d press properly for substantial can puts it, appropriations do other well we not want take way school rep- position “blackjacking they towns the cities or favors for reapportioning legislators into And we State.” should But the resent.9 primaries view; represent fall are sensible that for the should broader coming up will people whole, not elections soon be confine as promptly we should purely parochial settle issues decisions themselves possible, appeal supposed to allow time self-interest based —all So, Indeed, before the elections. while still decline fall towns. cherishing action, hope legislative significance system two-party and its we must these believe we establish schedule often American life is traced for ourselves in the that it is event else Baker- limited views. Whatever forthcoming. achieves, it to ex- lead Carr case should perimentation democracy, with true hearings hereafter, we At to be held equal nearly representation of equal expect propose counsel to shall therefore truly population. This cannot appropriate to consider decrees repre- if the tried members the House execute the decision have here stated. we only sent Union or Warren or Hartford *18 development for- the This will involve Bridgeport, people not the and the redistricting House both mulas for the Connecticut. along con- and shall now Senate lines we apportion- to must come The conclusion which we sider to a constitutional secure clear, namely, to us mal- seems the fur- ment in each House. And we shall apportionment of the both the whether the ther discuss with counsel represents equal acting 53, court, Senate a denial of the should under F.R.Civ.P. protection plaintiffs; hearings appoint laws the to to hold master declaratory redistricting are entitled to fol- settle the details of the judgment lowing to that We effect. realize to re- court’s instructions and traditionally many 9. Under the Rule” extensive “Home enact- under local decisions public legislature, ments of is less oc- education schools are there obligation. separate, state, town, casion than ever divisive and not a part action on And towns. prompt- port accepted arbitrary reasonable not the court with be as to limitations framing entered. on final decree to be ness of new as Senatorial dis- tricts. fixing House for- the Senate followed, is dis- the court In this to connection mulas be to be noted that sug- heavily Pinney rely plans posed intervenors, to on accepting while Advisory overriding gested Report importance of federal con- Intergovernmental Rela- principles stitutional Commission on to invalidate the apportionment tions, 1962, on state redistricting restrictions December on Senate, Legislatures, have re- which we nevertheless assert the still bind- ing supra, applying the to note 8 force of pro- the State ferred Constitutional visions, from permissible III, 3, deviation Article allowance Section as to the rigidly finding than less House. We have a state ratio somewhat no hesitation in This con- recommends. differentiation Commission to exist and in concluding reasonable view constitutional, cession seems local as statutory, into as requirements legis- the division well fact that we do have apportionment give these form convenient lative way towns and that must to may voting That, in combination federal principles. units for constitutional indeed, appropriate provide teaching to districts well seems be the of Baker Assembly. Carr, v. represented 186, the General U.S. 691, S.Ct. L.7 itself, 663, Ed.2d as well as the cases now experimentation Some will needed following any rate, it. At it is clear that existing governmental how see jurisdiction, we have as well a con- arranged units achieve the duty, Cooper Aaron, stitutional to act. v. comparable maximum results for units 1, 3, 5; 1401, U.S. 78 S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d substantially equal population. units of American Federation Labor v. Wat- suggest purely We here some tentative son, 582, 327 U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. guide lines, subject to revision in later 873; Sweeney Notte, R.I., v. 183 A.2d proceedings in this case. It would seem appropriate to have in mind a total mem- bership ranging of the House somewhere We realize that the course we have figure from 200 to the ideal judicial outlined involves ac- extensive possible low as is governmental to secure a workable tion as to matters hitherto series of beyond unit districts. Then it judicial would considered ken of towns, seem desirable not to divide branch. But fol- we conceive that though crossing coun- logic the ancient lows with from Baker inexorable ty long appropriate lines would Carr, seem so 369 U.S. S.Ct. homogeneity as reasonable the units grossly L.Ed.2d 663. The House is mal- would apportioned; be achieved. In result the cities so, Senate less enough impair would elect several plaintiffs’ consti- large, rights. while small several towns would be tutional We have decided that n appropriate combined where to make we cannot turn our backs on the House single legislative district. On this basis situation because of historical or other quite a deviation from unpersuasive. the state ratio reasons which seem us general little open excess maximum There two then courses 10% suggested by Advisory regard Commission us to the House. One Intergovernmental redistricting would Relations to order anew objectionable. existing up, seem And for bottom without reference *19 membership Senate a of from 30 to 36 town But lines. the confusion perhaps appropriate, rejection would seem with would of well result —even the voting operable systems less deviation from the State ratio here of known expected polls town, than in the House. Here it is in in the of well as the as agree, apparent, seemingly reject parties primaries all as the us to —causes III, illegal that the in so much as restrictions stated Article method as not over- whelmingly Accepting Section the the State Constitution can- inconvenient. of
.774 for the differ- existing voting or basis reasonable and seek- tional units as towns representatives according than pop- of equality in numbers ing ence to reasonable sought provide attempt that voters to units, if a State must we of such ulation ages could have of and 30 the between effect reasonable means to reasonable could have possible and those over 30 equality, de- one vote
population
with the
will in-
two.
This
indicated above.
viation
volve,
alia,
experimentation
some
inter
disagree, however,
majority
I
with the
body.
legislative
To
the
of
as to
size
the
First,*I
respects:
in
of the court
two
legislature does
are forced if the
this we
conclusion,
legal
cannot concur in their
we
convinced
But
are
act hereafter.
law,
a
of
that
as matter
constitutional
approach
experimental
that,
as an
viewed
of
the bicameral
two-house
reasonableness,
achieved
can be
results
to
Equal
violates the
Protection
a State
equal
give
principle of
effect to the
the Laws Clause
the Fourteenth
people
representation
without
the
Con-
Amendment
the United States
existing gov-
dislocation
overviolent
houses,
i.
stitution unless both
those
e.
units.
ernmental
Representa-
the Senate and the House of
tives,
composed members,
each
(concur-
Judge
ANDERSON, District
equal
represents
whom
the
number of
dissenting
part)
ring
part
:
population;
is, therefore,
it
un-
that
Leg-
constitutional for a State to have a
agree
of the court
I
composed
Senate,
islature
aof
thus based
composition
that
in its conclusion
population,
Represen-
on
a
and House of
Senate,
now
Connecticut State
n constituted,
system”,
tatives
i. e.
based
the “unit
plaintiffs
deprives
representa-
a fixed number of one or two
it
Equal
because
of the Laws
Protection
geographical
town as
tives
each
a
Third,
5 of the
Section
violates Article
although
Second,
unit.
it is within the
Connecticut.
Constitution
power
provision
a
the court
declare
agree
Connecticut State
I also
that
of a State constitution
in-
invalid and
appor-
Representatives
now
districting
operative
appor-
because
Third,
Article
tioned
accordance with
tionment,
pursuant
thereto,
made
is in
of Connec-
3 of the Constitution
Section
Constitution,
conflict with the Federal
Equal
deprives
plaintiffs
ticut
power
it does not
to fill the
have
because there
of the Laws
Protection
provision
vacuum thus created
a new
Section,
provi-
in that
after
included
fashioning
thus,
effect,
its
own
representatives
(cid:127)
for
for
each
sion
two
amend the
every
State’s Constitution.
5,000,
“and
town
over
the clause
provision
to make a
fill
new
its
one
shall
entitled
.other
people
that vacuum rests in
general assembly”.
representation in the
people
State of Connecticut and in the
so-called “Grandfather-
This
Therefore,
disagree
alone.
I also must
of Un-
the Town
clause” which enables
adopted by
procedure
ma-
population
two
of 383 to have
ion with
jority
dealing
question
for
with the
representatives
whereas
in the House
by promul-
relief
sought
case
4,567
can
Madison with
gating
“guide-lines”,
so-called
which are
one,
for
reason
the sole
really explicit
(cid:127)
directions
the fash-
in 1818 and
as a Town
Union existed
ioning
provisions
of substitutions for the
more
ra-
not. This is no
Madison did
portions
3, permitting
remove
of Section
of this clause from
Arti
The excision
remaining portions
opera-
remain
Third, Section 3 of the Connecticut
cle
tive,
change
light
would
the entire sense
would,
of a
Constitution
provision
membership
made for
provision of that section which re
further
quires
Representatives
House of
a man-
at
in
least 2500
town
contrary
ner which could well
to have a
habitants before it
entitled
is,
people
Legislature,
representative
will of the
the State.
It
leave
therefore, necessary
forty-one
the entire Sec-
towns with no
impossible simply
replaced.
is, therefore,
tion 3
It
all.
*20
Dougall Green,
281, 283-284,
of the Connecticut Constitution herein
335 U.S.
invalid,
turning
1, 2,
over to
(1948),
held
an 69 S.Ct.
towns, voting minority say control, however, that ultimate re- sys- population through Legislature have, pos- unit if mains something tem, acquired town, more than ition of as the basic unit powerless accessibility represen- only government, mere exists sufferance Colorado, opinion Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, 2. The of the Court in Baker Carr, Florida, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, 369 U.S. S.Ct. says Illinois, Maryland, (1963), Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, what L.Ed.2d 663 Nevada, Montana, Michigan, Mississippi, violates Amendment the Fourteenth Mexico, Island, policy, Jersey, “that a discrimination reflects New New Rhode arbitrary simply capricious Carolina, ac Texas and South Vermont. following significant tion.” States have unit in a limitation standard: 3. following system California, Maine, York, States use a unit New North Da- Pennsylvania. legislature: kota, in one of a Ohio house bicameral
777
Sovereign
might
up
Legislature
States,
is
abolish ment made
of
the
but
and that
composed
time it chose.
that
States
of affairs at
are
this state
sov-
towns;
theoretically so,
ereign
second,
course,
Of
this is
that the an-
alogy
shaky
not,
practically
unit
has a
it
because
foundation
because
system
whereby
adopted
Legislative
system,
populous areas
was
the less
for the
controlling
Branch of
voice
the Federal
Government as a
towns,
compromise. Granting
Representatives,
result of a
assures the
that
through
interesting
representatives,
true, they
that their
two
their
these
are
facts
manage
altogether
will
local affairs
seem to
to
their
me
irrelevant on the
majority
preserved.
using
takes the
issue of
be
whether this
The
device of
system
position
need
no
at all
unit
consideration
one
houses
given
legislature
town
small
bicameral
to the urban versus
is irrational and
Nearly
is no
because
conflicts in interest
there
unreasonable.
all constitutional
MacDougall
thing. However,
statutory
v. and
such
Green, supra,
enactments are the result
supra,
Carr,
compromise
Baker
of
that,
not,
v.
and are
because of
nearly
given weight.
lower court
as
progeny,
as
all
its
to
Moreover,
well
no
give
recognition
magic
to
exist-
“sovereign”
there
in the word
disparity
State,
of such a
of interests.4
as
opposed
ence
to a
attached
“the
powers
of the towns of Con-
majority opinion says
The
is no
there
phrases
necticut”.5
simply
These
justification to
found
in the “Federal
comparative descriptions of bundles of
Analogy”
system
for the use of the unit
governmental power and,
me,
seems
membership
house of a
one
representation
use
of the unit
de-
though
Legislature,
State
even
other
just
vice is
as rational and reasonable
upon population,
is based
because
house
it is not in
applied
large package
whether it is
to a
distinguish
point.
It
seeks
governmental powers
or to
small
Legis-
system
use
the unit
unequal protec-
one. The definition of
Branch of
lative
the Federal Government
by tion of
laws as
governments
“invidious discrimina-
from that in
arguing first,
impliea-
that the Federal Govern-
tion” carries with it moral
great majority
Advisory
report
The
federal
courts
The
Commission
Carr,
supra,
Intergovernmental
since Baker v.
when con-
on
on
Relations
relied
system
representa-
authority
fronted with
unit
in-
for the
political
analogy
applicability
tion based either on
area
federal
due
sys-
subdivisions
one house of
bicameral
the historical
accident of the unit
Senate,
other
with the
house based on
tem the
itself ad-
United States
population,
England
have indicated that
such a
mits
the New
States
sytem
require-
position
so
unit
used meets
there is a historical basis for the
ments
the Fourteenth
Amendment
the State is a federation of units
government. Apportionment
the United
Love,
v.
local
States Constitution.
Lisco
(Colo.1963);
F.Supp.
p.
Legislatures,
(1962).
219
922
43
Kerner,
history
F.Supp.
colony
Germano v.
220
230
of Connecticut as a
shows
(Ill.1963);
Adams,
F.Supp.
government
Sobel v.
208
that both the
structure
316,
(Fla.1962);
Adams,
prevailing
political
322
Sobel v.
and the
and moral
F.Supp.
(Fla.1963);
philosophy
214
Rhodes,
811
Nolan v.
the times
town
treated the
community
1963);
F.Supp.
(Ohio
power.
218
953
as the center of
Simon,
F.Supp.
system
M.W.
C. A. v.
The historical
368
basis for a
208
unit
representation
(N.Y.1962);
Forston,
based
v.
towns is clear.
Toombs
F.
205
See,
g., Andrews,
e.
The Colonial
Supp. 248,
Maryland
Period
(Ga.1962);
257
History,
91,
pp.
92, 103-7,
of American
Representation
Committee
for Fair
v.
112, 117,
(1936); Andrews,
165
Tawes,
(1962);
228 Md.
180
656
A.2d
(1889);
River Towns of Connecticut
Os-
Bodine,
N.J.Super.
Jackman
v.
terweis,
Haven,
Three Centuries of New
(1963); Sweeney
Notte,
cases most *27 Burkhart, own, already existing State’s position Moss v. are constitu-. provisions. tional In 1963) view the almost F.Supp. (W.D.Oklahoma 220 149 impossibility redistricting certain the possibly Synhorst, F. Davis v. 217 Supp. (Iowa Senate without constitution- 1963).8 In 492 Moss amendment, necessary al it not Burkhart, supra, is for this the court was faced n pass upon question presented Legis- court to the awith recalcitrant and rebellious reported Times, January F.Supp. Synhorst, New York In Davis v. 492 p. (Iowa 1963), court, invalidating eol. 7. the after portions Constitution, of the Iowa with- Adams, F.Supp. In Sobel v. 31 held affirmative relief to allow the Iowa (Fla.1962), the court was a faced with Legislature to the defects found correct situation similar to that Connecticut. system. rejecting apportionment plan in the Iowa In ties, a where small coun analogous Legislature small apparently towns of not act did in ac- Connecticut, into would consolidated suggestion. cordance with the court’s voting, purposes court districts the Legislature ordered court the into pow mindful of was the limitations of its special reap- adopt session to an interim many “The er: consolidation the portionment coming for the elections and populous and less smaller counties threatened the court itself would contiguous suggested. been one .has adopt reapportionment an interim if the might be, Desirable as this it ' Legislature again act. Al- failed to malapportionment are cure for' which we though report F.Sup no official of this latest or- to authorized administer”. p . available, proceedings der now the at 322.’ (if un- Burkhart, supra. the cannot be redistricted The issue Senate v.Moss 5), present the new has der Section constitu- Federal Court is whether a here provisions tional will not be in which power and, in enact State effect, to draft peo- conflict the Fourteenth Amendment provisions, which constitutional accept to the Federal Constitution.10 ple opportunity to have had no imposed reject. no court has Thus far Constitution As the Connecticut by judicial impose, de- to or threatened written, grave however, now there are cree, provision a new constitutional difficulties involved in the amendment a State. explain fully procedure. To this more necessary provisions it is discuss two probably to has no The Federal Court One is Connecticut Constitution. cir- power under these to draft statutes obey Article 1 of the and the Amendments to and order the State cumstances power other is 2 of Article First.12 Section Certainly court has them. draft, people require aof to opinion It been stated in this to accept, to an amendment principle represen- unit use of the my opinion that It is Constitution. choosing tation in the members of the has no this case the Federal Representatives House of in Connecticut Legisla- ordering go beyond power to does not violate the Fourteenth Amend- measures, adopt of Connecticut ture ment to the Constitution of the United authority Constitu- of its own under the States, long as the Senate is based people of tion, present the State upon population, and that use membership question of how system pro- unit is a rational device to Representatives and House its Senate legislative power vide for the diffusion of give peo- and to is to be constituted give will the smaller towns opportunity ple fair to vote a full and potential compel electoral question. upon that response reasonable to their needs and go opening beyond system interests, cannot within The court where the the door to the relief urban ing have a affirmative centers similar balanc- plaintiffs power. this, can want and which view of the method amending only by supplied people of the State the Constitution Con- enacting, place present set forth in its Amend- necticut as First ment, face, only Third, on its Article Section 3 and Section can work to dis- nays, shall, by people adopting said vote either amendments 10. The system apportionment secretary, rejecting transmitted the town state, bearing rationality clerk in each town in duty whose system Four shall be to when tested under the same thereof, teenth Amendment the United States for their inhabitants consid- Syn See, g., e. Constitution. Davis v. eration, meeting, legally a town warned horst, 1963); F.Supp. (Iowa *28 217 505 purpose; if and for that and held it shall Love, (Colo. F.Supp. Lisco v. 922 provided by appear, in a manner to be 1963). way saying is another This law, majority pres- that a of the electors government by should consent of be voting on ent and such amendments at governed. meetings approved shall have such Amendments, 11. Article 1 of Constitu- amendments, valid, be same shall to Connecticut, tion Sec. 1: “Whenever purposes, part all and intents as of this majority representa- house constitution.” necessary shall deem it to alter or tives Connecticut, constitution, may pro- they Article Constitution amend this amendments, First, political power pose 2: all such alterations See. “That proposed people, in the be is inherent all free which amendments shall con- assembly governments general are on their au- to next founded tinued benefit; may thority, published their with the which and instituted laws they session; passed have at all times an un- have been at the same right house, alter at deniable and indefeasible and if two-thirds of each government ap- assembly, their such man- of said form next session shall expedient.” by yeas they proposed, prove ner think amendments suggested against pro- invidiously is that each of voters It criminate posed plaintiffs, to Article Third position because amendments power to submitted to the voters two or more limits the amendment the first alternatives. State Con- to the initiate amendments Representa- jurisdiction House of stitution This court should reserve is so constituted that House tives. As to see whether or not within a reasonable controlling that of amendments, imple- voice in it is that the time constitutional towns, consequence by any necessary statutes, the small is mented amending key the Connecticut deprive voters of enacted which do not exclusively in the rests Constitution un- Fourteenth Amendment large towns; and the hands of the small der the Federal If the Constitution. centers, power legislators whose electoral urban or other prevent officials refuse State Senate, no means have exercised to enact or the enactment of such change by a Historically, can initiate provisions, this court will be faced with question the State’s Constitution.13 sanc- the uncomfortable tions, what created, rea- any, when the was first imposed. Senate if A should be placing in the complete illegally sons this existed refusal consti- present House, Legislature at necessary more numerous tuted to take the provide might can conceivably time to that small towns action result having but urban centers Legisla- initiate amendments State of Connecticut cannot, government. is neither rational nor reasonable in its tive Branch arbitrary. plainly capricious and is question then will arise as to whether would, therefore, I hold that the First republican or not Connecticut has a form government Amendment of the State Constitution meaning within the Guaranty violation of the Fourteenth Amend- Clause the Federal Con- ment to the Federal Constitution Relief stitution. under circum- these Legislature cannot be used stances rests in the hands of the Con- initiating necessary gress means amend- of the United States. Baker v. Third, place Carr, ments take Article supra. 5, necessary. if Section and also Section delay Without further the Governor Special should 2 of Article to call a There remains Section directed Ses- provisions which, sion of the First under General State Legislature may necessary qualified of submit to the Connecticut take the steps pro- place voters of the posed before the voters of the n proposals amendments to the Constitu- State to amend the First replace Third, Third, tion Article Amendment Article Section Section necessary, Constitution, Section 5 if and the the State First as well as to Amendment, are in redistrict violation of Senate to conform or, Federal Article Third, Constitution.14 Section 5 if right change through, to amend the form the federal courts. The government vitally important caught up of right. is a of the legislative voters been jacket.” Clarh, concurring in Baker Justice strait Lower courts Carr, availability 369 U.S. at S.Ct. considered of this “ * * * right passing upon appor- I in said: would not consider a State’s system. See, g., into delicate tervention this Court so tionment Rhodes, e. Nolan v. F.Supp. (Ohio a field if there were other relief avail *29 1963) ; Synhorst, people F.Supp. Davis able to the of Tennessee. But the people (Iowa 1963). of of Tennessee exerting ‘practical opportunities Duffy, F.Supp. 14. See Sincock v. political weight polls’ their at the to cor ; (Del.1963) Bain, Wells v. Pa. 39 existing rect ‘invidious discrimina (1874). Every peo- State reserves to the tion.’ and Tennessee has no initiative ple change form of diligently referendum. I have searched government. Advisory Commission ‘practical opportunities’ present for other Legislatures, Apportionent State State- of Legislatures, p. (1962). under I find none other than .law. (c) necessary steps impossible, Pope, Jr., to take the Frederick in the Town Fairfield, proposal place Twenty-fifth before the voters a of in the Sena- District; Third, Article so that torial amend Section portions all Connecticut of these (d) Mariani, Peter P. in the Town of Constitution, of amended vote Eighteenth' Groton, in the Senatorial longer State, people in will no District. conflict with the Fourteenth Amend- Pinney Two of intervenors are of Constitution of the United ment qualified residents and voters in towns States. 5,000 population: of less than A. Searle Pinney (pop. 3,405) FACT AND FINDINGS OF of Brookfield and Tyler Patterson, Lyme J. 3,068). (pop. OF LAW CONCLUSIONS Jr. of Old hearing, Court, makes after full Findings following 3. Bailey and Fact Con- The intervenor John M. qualified clusions of Law. resident and voter in the Connecticut, State of particu- and more FACT FINDINGS OF larly qualified is a resident and in voter plaintiffs and 1. The are all residents Hartford, the Town of in the Second Sen- qualified voters the State Connecti- atorial District. cut, particularly more are residents and 4. The defendants are elected officials following qualified and voters Connecticut, State of as follows: Towns and Senatorial Districts: (a) Dempsey John is the Governor of (a) Butterworth, But- Oliver Miriam Connecticut; the State of Wallace, Rains terworth S. (b) Secretary Ella T. Grasso is the Hartford, the Fifth Town West Connecticut; District; Senatorial (c) Donald J. Irwin is Treasurer of (b) Robert Beach Charles Jacob- Connecticut; the State of son, Manchester, the Town in the (d) Raymond Comp- S. Thatcher is District; Fourth Senatorial Connecticut; troller State of George Lucas, (c) in the Town of East (e) Secretary As of the State of Con- Hartford, in the Fourth Dis- Senatorial necticut, designated Ella T. Grasso is also ; trict Elections, 9-3, Commissioner of Section Bradley (d) Morehouse and John Nor- Connecticut, General Statutes of Revision Fairfield, man, in in the the Town of is, law, of charged under Connecticut Twenty-fifth District; Senatorial supervisory du- and other (e) Maclay, City of S. in the David relating ties to the conduct of elections. Twenty-first Bridgeport, in the Sena- Towns each of Connecti- District; torial (169 number), per- cut number (f) Holland, City B. Albert law, charged, sons are under Connecticut Hartford, in the Second Dis- Senatorial relating with various to the con- duties trict. duct of elections. The total number Pinney 2. The are all res- persons intervenors too make such are numerous to qualified practicable bring idents voters in the State them all before Connecticut, particularly and more the Court. qualified residents voters complaint in this action seeks following Towns and Senatorial Dis- enforcement, operation restrain the : tricts portions or execution Constitu- (a) Pinney, A. in the Town Searle and certain statutes of the tion Twenty-fourth Brookfield, by restraining in Sen- the action District; ground atorial that the the defendants (b) Tyler Patterson, Jr., stat- in the Connecticut Constitution J. Lyme, contravene the Constitution Town of utes Old the Twentieth District; *30 United States. Senatorial altered, sena- judicial nor the number of notice be takes The 7. altered, except small, compact at session tors Connecticut assembly general after the ap- next State, the dimensions of which are the completion the United by of a census of proximately 89 miles No miles. only States, in then accordance part than two hours of the State more pro- City principles hereinbefore with the the distant automobile from persons State, voted for for Hartford, capital The and no vided. the the shall, of such at the time part hours senators is more than four of the State n distantfrom vote, belong in re- to and reside the part of other State. spective in which are districts population 8. of the The State for.” so voted 2,535,234 and in 1960 was Connecticut 275,248. in 1820 was Third, Section was 12. Article adopted in 1901. 9. The Constitution State Connecticut, presently effect, was general redistricting of last 13. The and, adopted to time in 1818 time place at which took Senate then, has since been amended. Assembly divided time the General 10. Connecticut Constitution es- The thirty- thirty-five A into districts. State Assembly. a bicameral tablishes General (Greenwich) was added sixth district this 1941. Aside from the addition of provision 11. The of the Connecticut shifting some of boundaries district and relating to Constitution the Senate Haven, the districts in New between follows: of Connecticut is as redistricting of has been no valid there III, 5. “Article Section since 1903. the Senate number senatorial districts “The Legislation 14. enacted in 1953 to re- twenty-four not be than shall less district was invalidated Senate thirty-six, nor more than and each Supreme Er- Connecticut Court of only one district shall elect senator. ground only ses- rors always com- districts shall be sion of the General next after contiguous territory, posed completion of the census United States forming regard be shall them power to redistrict the Senate. population dis- had in the several attempts 15. All other to redistrict tricts, same near- as have failed. the Senate ly equal possible limi- under the tations this section. Neither presently constituted, As 16. the Sen- part county shall whole of one population atorial Districts and joined part of or a the whole para- such district each stated district, county to form another Stipulation graph 2e case divided, unless and no town shall dated March 1963. forming purpose of more for the , disparity 17. The between the most wholly district within such than one populous (the Senatorial District Twen- town, county and each shall ty-fifth 175,940 inhabitants) districts, as senator. least one populous (the least District Tenth with by law, shall contin- now established 21,627 inhabitants) inis a ratio of 8 to same until the session of ue the general assembly next after com- pletion population the next census If total general States, assem- is divided United bly shall to alter number of Senators Senate same, necessary preserve Connecticut, if found State of the norm for each 70,423. equality population proper Senatorial aver- District age district, only populous accordance the five most each recited; 159,721, principles above districts is 226.8% average population shall norm. The after which districts said *31 28,722 authority populous or meration made under the districts least five States, of the census of norm. of United 40.8% represen- next before the of election population most the five of 19. tatives is held. In case a new town represents populous Senatorial Districts incorporated, shall hereafter be population total of the of the 31.5% State new town shall not be entitled ato (13.9% and elects five Senators representative general in the assem- Senators). The total number of bly twenty-five unless it has at least population populous the five least Sen- of inhabitants, hundred and unless the represents Districts atorial 5.6% major portion town which the population and also total territory taken, of its has also at five elects Senators. twenty-five least hundred inhabi- having 20. The Senatorial Districts tants, until such towns shall each population 811,242, or a total of 31.9% twenty-five have at least in- hundred State, population of total elect of habitants such town new shall for Senators, majority Senate. purpose representation in the 21. Seventeen of the 36 Senatorial general assembly attached to and be populations have or more Districts 25% part be deemed to be a town norm. Districts have below the Those 17 portion major from which the itsof anbe population 699,249, or a total 27.6% territory taken, and it shall State, population total election district of such town for elect of the Senate. 47.2% purpose representation in the representatives.” house of Eight 22. Dis- Senatorial populations or tricts more 25. The Fundamental Orders of % provided original norm. above the Those 8 Districts have 1638-9 three 1,112,620, population Hartford, total towns of Windsor and Weth- 43.9% population State, of the total ersfield were to “four of send their Free- deputies every elect Senate. men” General 22.2% Court, and new towns were to send “so By reason 23. of the limitations set many deputies judge as the Court shall Third, forth in Article Section meet, proportion a reasonable to the num- Constitution, the Senate can- ber Freemen that are in the said conformity not redistrieted in towns.” that Article in such manner as to avoid disparities populous granted between the most 26. The Charter of populous II, provided and least Districts are Charles the General order of two to one. should have more than two persons from each town. provision 24. The Constitu- adopted tion of the State of Connecticut estab- 27. The Constitution in 1818 lishing representation provided existing in the House Representatives is as follows: towns should have the same number of representatives present practised at “as III, “Article Section 3. towns, and allowed.” formed New after house “The shall adption Constitution, should residing consist of electors in towns have one. Every from which are elected. By constitutional amendment contains, town now here- having 1874, every 5,000 town more than population shall after contain a persons representatives. was allotted two thousand, shall five entitled to representatives, every By send two constitutional amendment other one shall requirement to its entitled was added that gener- representation population new towns must assembly. becoming al of each least before entitled to representative. shall be determined enu- town one *32 788 reapportion persons. representative attempts A the 089 from the All 30. Representatives represents, of Union on aver- Town the House of Connecticut age, persons. 191 of The vote a resident have failed. weighted 424.5 and voter of Union is represen- present number of 31. The heavily as the vote of a resident times In it was 279. In 294. tatives is of and voter Hartford. 203. 1821 was 255. 1903 it was 40. One nineteen hundred of the population of the Towns The 32. in the of Towns State Connecticut years stat- in the Connecticut the of State populations per representative or 25% representatives of ed, number the of norm, popula- more below the and 27 have of House the each Town representative per more tions or year stated, 25% are Representatives in the The the above norm. Towns below paragraph 2b of the as enumerated 518,647, population norm have a total of Stipulation March this case dated population or of of the the total 20.4% 1963. State, representatives, or elect population most of the ten 33. The The of House. 27 Towns 66.0% populous Cities of the State Towns and population per rep- with a the State population 988,818, of is or 39% resentative or more above the norm 25% repre- they twenty State, elect population 1,626,794, total of or sentatives, the total number or of 6.8% State, population total of 64.2% representatives. of representatives, and elect or 18.3% population of least the ten 34. The of the House. 7,554, populous is or of Towns 0.2% Forty-four 41. Towns in the 169 they State, population total representative; only elect one State representatives, or elect twelve 4.0% range 4,- such Towns in size from 600 to representatives. number total average 785; 2,373; population is having population 35. a total Towns population 104,435, their total is or 4.1% popula- 301,485, or the total 11.9% Connecticut, population of the total representa- State, tion of the elect elect of the House. 15% tives, majority Rep- the House of plaintiffs 42. All the are residents resentatives of the State. representatives rep- Towns the of which population of 36. If the total Representatives resent in the representa- is divided number constituencies more than above 25% Representatives of House of tives norm. State, 8,623 persons per the result is plain- plaintiffs except 43. All the norm”). representative (“the Maclay tiffs and Holland are residents average population of the ten The popu- of Senatorial Districts in which the populous most Towns and Cities in lation is more than the norm. above 25% 98,882, and State of Connecticut is each City rep- judicial 44. The such or entitled to two Court takes notice Town Nauga- representatives Waterbury, resentatives. Towns of tuck, Seymour, Derby, represent, such Town and Cities on the Ansonia and locat- Naugatuck Valley, average, 49,441 persons, ed in mark- or 573.4% edly
norm. different from each in their other economy compositions; basic ly, or similar- average population the ten Wilton, Weston, Towns Easton populous least Towns in Westport, County, located in Fairfield Connecticut is and each such Town markedly are not different from each representa- entitled, average, 1.2 on the economy composi- other their basic of such tives each. tions. represent, average, Towns persons the norm. 7.3% currently 45. No relevant reason representative City 39. A be found in the or is record known 81,- why represents, average, Madison, Hartford on the Town 4,567 rep- persons, amendments, has one the same shall be Representa- valid, House of resentative in the tives, purposes, all intents and part Union while Town of with a as a of this constitution.” *33 population persons, of has two such CONCLUSIONS OF LAW representatives. complaint 1. The herein sets forth a currently 46. No relevant reason is justiciable controversy par- between the found in the record or is known to the jurisdiction ties. Court has of this why City Waterbury, with a of action under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and §§ 107,130 population persons, of has two 1343(3) (4). 28 U.S.C. and § adjoining representatives, while its plaintiifs 2. The persons herein are neighbor south, Naugatuck, to the simi- residing legislative having districts larly geographically and econom- situated representation they less than are entitled ically, population 19,511, but with a of to, properly representative also has two. class behalf of which sue and have currently No 47. relevant reason is standing to maintain this action. found in record or is known to prin- 3. The defendants herein are the why Westport, the Court the Town of cipal persons charged responsi- population 20,955 persons, with a of relating bilities to the conduct of elections neighbor representatives, two while its and the defendant Ella geo- north, similarly Wilton, situated properly representative T. Grasso is of graphically economically, but with persons charged the class of with the du- 8,026, rep- of also has two conducting ties of elections in the State resentatives. of Connecticut. amending process, 48. The under the districting present 4. The of the Con- Constitution, Connecticut is as follows: voting necticut Senate so debases the plaintiffs of in- as to result Constitution, “Amendment To Ar- against plaintiffs vidious discrimination I, ticle Section thereby equal protec- who are denied the majority of “Whenever the house tion of laws in contravention shall deem it Fourteenth Amendment the United necessary to alter or amend this States Constitution. constitution, they may propose such amendments, alterations and which present apportionment 5. The proposed shall be con- amendments Representatives Connecticut House so general tinued to the next assem- voting rights plaintiffs debases the bly published laws to result in an invidious discrimination passed at which have been against plaintiffs thereby who are denied session; if same two-thirds equal protection of the laws con- house, each at the next session travention Fourteenth Amendment assembly, approve said shall of the United States Constitution. by yeas proposed, amendments Third, 6. So much of Article Section shall, by nays, said amendments im- of the Connecticut Constitution as secretary, be transmitted to the town poses popula- equality limitations state, clerk in each town tion between districts of Connecticut duty present whose it shall be being Senate, contravention thereof, same the inhabitants to consideration, equal protection Fourteenth clause of the at a town meet- Amendment of the States Con- United ing, legally warned and held for that stitution, is void and of no effect. purpose; appear, and if it shall in a provided law, Third,, manner to be Article Section pre- Constitution, Connecticut the electors weighting substantially equal voting on such amendments at cludes meetings approved shall votes of all in the choice voters Amendment the- Fourteenth House of Connecticut members Representatives, Constitution, void being United States in contravention of no protection effect. equal clause of the the United 3,. Amendment of Third, Fourteenth (4) Section Article That Constitution, and of no is void ef- States Constitu- substantially tion, precludes fect. all- equal weighting votes of Judge, ANDERSON, concurs District of' of members in the choice voters the Connecticut resentatives, part part in accord- dissents Rep- dissenting opinions of Feb- his ance with being in contraven- *34 ruary 10, and March protection equal clause- tion of the of Amendment of Fourteenth the JUDGMENT Constitution, United States having October heard been This cause effect. void and of no plain- merits, aswell 1963 on its Dempsey, (5) That defendants John judg- summary partial motion for tiffs’ Grasso, T. Donald J. Irwin Ella Pinney mo- intervenors’ ment and on the Raymond Thatcher, their S. a cause for failure to state tion to dismiss privies in of- successors and their action; and of any doing enjoined fice, from are having opinions filed Feb- Court taking any steps further- act or findings ruary 10, 1964 and of fact holding- nominating or of ance herewith; and conclusions of law representa- senators or of elections having heard been further cause of' or House- tives the Senate judgment form March 1964 on the of Representatives of' of the State entered; it is Connecticut, and said defendants ORDERED, DE- ADJUDGED AND certify- enjoined further from are CREED : ing any or in other manner declar- such, districting (1) ing That of the that the results of or are valid' Connecticut so debases nominations elections Senate voting rights plaintiffs re- of as to or of the State- that the legal- properly sult an invidious discrimination of Connecticut against plaintiffs thereby ly constituted, who are either unless equal protection denied (a) represen- all senators and of the Four- laws contravention elect- are nominated and tatives teenth Amendment of the United of and House ed to Senate States Constitution. Representatives of' of (2) present apportionment That state Connecticut Rep- large, of the Connecticut House of voting resentatives so debases the (b) represen- all senators and plaintiffs of as to result tatives are nominated and elect- in an invidious discrimination of ed Representatives and House to the Senate against plaintiffs thereby who of of the State protection equal denied the pursuant re- Connecticut districting to a laws in of the Four- contravention the Senate teenth Amendment of United reapportionment of House States Constitution. promptly to be effected Assembly (3) Third, That so much so of Article General voting rights plaintiffs Section the Connecticut Con- imposes of members stitution as limitations in the choice guaranteed upon equality both be- houses protection equal clause tween districts being Senate, the Fourteenth Amendment in contravention equal protection the United States Constitution clause to the impaired; re- Court for transmission this will districting (Supreme Supreme Court Court Senate 12) specified reapportionment of within time Rule infra; subparagraph (d) by the General manner as done in such (d) and rec- case shall be docketed substantially equal achieve shall be filed with the Clerk ord weighting all votes Supreme (Supreme Court Court members the choice voters thirty days (30) 13) within Rule accordance of both houses filing of the no- from the date guidelines indicated with the appeal; tice of Judge opinion the late (Su- (e) jurisdictional statement as an E. Clark included Charles 15) preme Court Rule shall be filed opinion appendix of this docketing simultaneously with the February 10, 1964. filed filing the record of the case injunction <6) specified sub- That execution within the time foregoing (5) paragraph paragraph (d) supra; stayed Judgment until the (f) (10) days from the Within ten *35 by man- receipt Court of this Supreme date of the order Supreme Court date noting jurisdiction probable Court any appeal or United States postponing or consideration Supreme .appeals to the taken jurisdiction question of to the hear- Judgment, pro- Court this (Su- ing on the of the case merits vided, in of the vital interest view preme appellants 16), Rule Court people Con- (cid:127)of the State of appropriate an shall file motion bringing promptly into necticut Supreme Court to the Clerk being does not case, requesting for advance this Con- (cid:127)contravene United States good cause that it be down set ap- .stitution, appeal or that such argument date con- on the earliest peals Supreme to the Court be Supreme Court, hav- venient to the diligently prosecuted expe- and regard ing similarity of is- to the including ditiously, adherence to in the instant ease cases sues following schedule: pending Supreme Court now 43(3) (cid:127)(a) (Supreme (Supreme appeal Court Rule notice of 10) (4)). Rule be within Court shall filed days, computed (5) under -five as parties are or- All their counsel 6(a), this F.R.C.P. from the date of every stage appeal or dered at (cid:127)order;* Judgment appeals from this all (b) appeal respects proceedings, expedite notice shall include a to in- n designation (Supreme cluding Rule Court strict adherence to the fore- 10(2) (b)) going that the entire record this schedule. Clerk of by give priority top this case be certified the Clerk Court is directed to Supreme Court, preparation transcript (cid:127)of this Court to the of rec- cross-designa- -making unnecessary Supreme ord for transmission stipulation respect tion or Court. (Supreme the record Court Rule jurisdiction (7) That action is this 12); entry such fur- retained for the (c) transcript by as entire record ther orders this Court designated necessary appeal proper, in the notice of be ing includ- prepared any required shall in the ab- the Clerk order * Referring April provides ex to an entered order ment wMeli pediting schedule Court, amending Paragraph. (6), subpara appeal Supreme Judg .graphs (a) through (f), of this prompt Supreme proceedings action sence Gen- Court if the Gener- Assembly contemplated promptly eral al then fails to act as Judg- paragraph (5) (b) contemplated of this by paragraph (b) (5) fully ment, Judgment. and as more described the opinion in the Court’s of Febru- suggested that Court’s- It has this been ary 10, 1964. declaring pro- power is invalid limited (8) plaintiffs’ partial motion for That constitution State- visions summary judgment districting is denied as of the Sen- statutes because pur- moot. apportionment of ate and Federal thereto contravene the (9) Pinney suant That the intervenors’ mo- Constitution; Court is but to dismiss for tion failure state power affirmatively re- to order without of action is denied. cause short, districting reapportionment. In (10) That no costs shall taxed suggested that a Court has been against party to this action. wrong say not what we can what ANDERSON, Judge, District concurs right. part part dissents accord- powers and do not understand We dissenting opinions of ance with his Feb- limited. thus of this Court duties ruary 10, 26, 1964. 1964 and March undertaking “probably the to resolve governmental problem of most difficult ON FORM OF MEMORANDUM age,” intend of course to fashion our we JUDGMENT Supreme indi- as the such relief PER CURIAM. duty our cates within grant. repeatedly our adjudi- stated Judgment today We entered *36 necessary preference hope that the presently issues before cates each redistricting reappor- Senate It declares the constitutional Court. by (2), the House done rights (Paragraphs (1), tionment of be plaintiffs by Assembly this rather than (3), (4)) prayer General in accordance their hope and grants declaratory still entertain judgment; Court. We for a it an confronted, however, preference. If injunction in accordance with their part persistent injunctive (Paragraph a refusal prayer for relief certainly act, injunc- (5)); stays we General it execution of may power, under be pending Supreme well appeal tion Court by duty, affirmatively, plan a formulat- (6)), (Paragraph of the United States by necessary, if to order ed this Court provided appeal promptly taken redistricting reap- of the Senate and a diligently expeditiously prosecut- and ed, devoutly portionment the House. We including application for the earli- necessary hope argument will for us to ex- it not be power. possible appeal est of such neces- Supreme If ercise becomes Court—all in accordance sary, we will not hesitate. with the stated intention counsel for appellants; prospective and it re- jurisdic- upon The statutes jurisdiction (Paragraph (7)) serves ample tion of this Court rests confer any appro- this to enter meaningful Court further granting power for the priate orders, including any order which appropriate apportionment relief in an required after conclusion of the prop- equity, “suit in or other case.2 The Judge Dempsey, any Valenti tom, usage, Clark v. 211 Ter- State or F.Supp. 911, (D.Conn.1962). ritory, subjects, or causes to be sub- jected, any citizen the United States provisions upon 2. The statutes jurisdiction person jurisdiction rests, other within the which the rights, relevant, deprivation any insofar thereof are: privileges, by U.S.C. § or immunities secured “Every who, laws, person Constitution and shall liable under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, injured law, party eus- in an action at n er redress,” proceeding referred to doubt that “the District Court will be emphasis in 42 able to fashion U.S.C. relief § if violations of con- remedies” (Id. 198), “suitable stitutional U.S.C. found” § at persons right protection all held Tor “the that “The asserted is within rights, judicial protection in their United civil reach of States under vindication,” (Id. in 28 the Tor their Fourteenth Amendment” at 237). 1343(3) depriva- to “redress the U.S.C. § * * * tion, any law, under color of concurring opinion In his in the Baker * * * n right any secured case, (Id. 258-259): Justice Clark said States,” 'Constitution of the United 1343(4) power in 28 U.S.C. “Although § ap- I find the Tennessee n grant “equitable or other relief under portionment statute offends the Congress .any providing of Act for the Equal Clause, Protection I would not including protection rights, of civil consider intervention this Court right vote,” all reflect a broad mandate into so delicate a if field there were n Congress provide to this Court to suit- any other relief available to the equitable going beyond able relief mere people major- of Tennessee. But the n declaration infringement of constitu- ity people of Tennessee have rights. is, opinion, tional There in our ‘practical opportunities for ex- congressional ample authorization for erting political weight their at the this Court to action in take affirmative polls’ existing to correct the ‘invidi- * * * entering redistricting decree and re- ous discrimination.’ anything apportionment when less would majority of the voters have been n neither a real “remedy” effectively nor caught legislative up jack- in a strait * * * any deprivation '“redress” whatsoever. legislative policy et. [T] he has riveted the Assembly seats in the Carr, Baker 369 U.S. 82 S respective to their consti- plaintiffs (1962), .Ct. L.Ed.2d 663 tuencies, the votes of their n alleged equal protection denial of reapportionment incumbents through malapportionment aof laws prevented. people kind is legislature resulting state in debasement n have been at the rebuffed hands voting rights in the choice of *37 Assembly; they legislature. tried the members of the preme Su Court, having route, no declared it had constitutional convention but
42 ject, the same into sons where necessary exercised with the laws of the United * * *, inconsistent with the far laws statutes of the State wherein the cause is matters conferred on the district courts by ing having suit * * U.S.C. § “The for redress.” as such in changed by or are deficient and for their *, jurisdiction equity, the United States jurisdiction held, the United provisions the common 1988 for the and enforced to are not laws furnish so far as the same is or effect; otlier the constitution protection vindication, adapted in such of suitable suitable to Constitution States, law, proper proceed- civil this civil as modified conformity of all to provisions States, their * remedies all cases shall shall be chapter the ob- * carry court * * * per- civil so * 28 U.S.C. § in the trial and jurisdiction munity inal authorized any person: Act of or rivation, statute, extended to and tection Congress providing citizens equitable [*] right “ “The “(4) To recover usage, [*] ** United States jurisdiction to vote.” ff i¡: Congress district secured of civil or of all ordinance, under color of 1343 * by of the United any right, privilege (3) law other courts shall have disposition by govern providing for the rights, To damages to be persons the Constitution for or regulation, relief any redress by equal rights any commenced including of the cause States; civil action or to secure any said courts under within the custom Act of or im- orig- dep- pro- law, any by by proposed originate had been tionment in the must the call since gave specific plaintiffs; a defendants Assembly it, too, fruitless.” has been objections and which to file time within 260): (Id. at continued Clark Justice plan; stated an alternative to file competence lack- judicial were “If either, plan, if then decide would decree, I ing an effective fashion expressing as approve, no doubt it would appeal. Howev- this dismiss would plan. power impose Baker v. a to its * * * difficulty er, such I see Carr, F.Supp. 684, (M.D.Tenn. position this case.” 1963). reappor- proposed a then Clark Justice has least one district court At other imply- own, clearly plan of his tionment ing gone in enter even further than Baker Court is the function that it reapportionment ing order an as existed there in circumstances Burkhart, legislature. In Moss v. state reapportion- the initial order at least F.Supp. (W.D .Okla.1963), say (Id. ment; at went on to for he unanimously three-judge district court 260): an OF REAPPOR “ORDER entered TIONMENT”, suggested plan would here “[T]he particu spelling out with strangle hold now release the least larity composition district each permit it to re- on the members state for the election district itself.” (Id. senate and house of having 156), after found the ex at isting legislature strik- Connecticut is situation was “either unable ingly like that found in Tennessee unwilling reapportion in ac itself” Here, Supreme Baker case. requirements of the with the cordance there, as “the of the voters protection equal of the Fourteenth clause legislative caught up in strait been * * * 155)4 (Id. at Amendment. legislative jacket. policy [T]he As- seats in riveted Synhorst, F.Supp. Davis respective sembly constituen- (S.D.Iowa 1964), three-judge dis- cies, votes their incum- court, having held trict unconstitutional reapportionment bents a kind “invidiously discriminatory” certain Connecticut, prevented.” In Ten- to the state constitution amendments nessee, it is the votes incumbent providing apportionment of members legislators redistricting ordered; that a Assembly, of the Iowa General and a constitutional amendment Senate “That this Court will abstain reapportionment of the House are attempting impose at time prevented, amend- initiate plan provided apportionment [,] ments to the Connecticut Constitution special As- session the General being exclusively in the House.3 vested sembly of con- Iowa is *38 Upon Supreme Court, promptness-- remand from with reasonable the vened three-judge reapportion- action for the district court and taken general reappor- ment in Baker case entered order accordance the by ually power, I, negative 3. § Gonn.Gonst. amend. effected injunctive may It conventional decree. respect power With its enter an we well be the affirmative relief that reapportionment, order of the court said: judicial pow- grant in of our excess know, course, that the function “We time, so, know er. If we will in due Legislature apportioning the State questions squarely pre- the for legislative essentially nature; one sented, undoubtedly and will be au- have never before which the Courts thoritatively during next decided undertaken; from and one which we * * * Supreme term Court. may very precluded, well be even Meanwhile, proceed shall on the we inadequate the face of redress for the premise equity is never fundamental deprivation rights. know civil We impotent judicial grant law.” indolent before the power redress right (220 155) deprivation F.Supp. for us-- at of a civil
795
legislative
Bush,
(Martin
222,
apportion-
guide
376 U.S.
for
v.
84
lines
S.Ct.
* * *
including,
(1964)),
11
656
[the
L.Ed.2d
out
ment set
(Emphasis
presumably,
opinion.]”
add-
form
relief there
Court’s
ed)
granted,
respect
the issue with
to which
by
dissenting judge
was raised
be-
jurisdiction “to con
reserved
court
'The
(
concerns case, litiga party and there is no Constitution; the Federal stitution and purporting represent tion the small legisla- cases others are where towns. provi- to abide refused tures have correct, If Salem and Franklin are all constitutions. own sions State’s towns in Connecticut would have of Bush to the ease refer represented litigation. (S.D.Texas in this F.Supp. Small Martin, towns, large towns, towns, bearing middle-sized 1963); n case towns, towns, towns, rural old Martin, supra, urban deals Bush v. because necessary parties. redistricting. new towns would all be congressional parties stands, As it now none of the provides that Constitution Federal actually speaking for congressmen intervenors from each State number
799 they special had because no rela- fendant qua qua towns But towns towns. suit, to tion the elections while interest do not a substantial towns have League Municipalities v. of Neb. sure, Connecti- in this matter. To be Marsh, F.Supp. (D.C.Neb.1962), 209 189 provides cut towns Constitution that mayors of cities were considered im- rep- or shall be to send two entitled one proper parties capacities. in their official general assembly, but to the resentatives all this is citizens of means that are in dis- towns effect election repre- two towns shall or vote one purposes suit, tricts for the of this corporate sentatives. The town as right necessary no to intervene as municipality has no more interest parties. untimely, Since motion is litigation outcome of it than would may quite properly be denied. See if it whose were senatorial district Thigpen Meyers, F.Supp. v. 211 827 being lines attacked as unfair. The were (W.D.Wash.1962), n. 2 the motion where town, in or its selectmen sense Grange of the state to four intervene representatives, does not or elect select days before trial as un- was dismissed representative; is function of timely. Conn.Const., Art. individual voter. Pinney intervenors, of whom two Third, Secs. 5,000' are towns of than electors less plaintiffs in this attack case population, already ably are and articu- portion of the Connecticut Constitution lately representing the small town voters. apportions according to the House The motion to intervene is denied. town lines. There attack direct Any on the towns. interest the towns ANDERSON, Judge (dissent- District maintaining have is collateral via ing). effectiveness their citizens’ votes. my opinion why binding It is How or would be the motion the decree should granted permit on be by so as to the towns is a to little hard see. intervention petitioners, represent- the individual As the towns of Franklin Salem ing popu- electors the 152 towns with (p. 12), concede their brief no court 41,662 under, lations of which includes yet explicitly parties decided what Franklin, Salem and and I also would indispensable reapportionment in a grant equal quali- leave number of Gray Sanders, case. Yet in v. 372 U.S. persons represent fied intervene the- (1963), 83 S.Ct. 821 L.Ed.2d population electors towns with a Supreme where invalidated 41,662. purpose in excess of For the Georgia’s county-unit voting system, the this action small towns or rural areas- Georgia parties counties were not should be defined as the 152 munici- Frink, F.Supp. suit. Sims v. palities populations 41,662 with (M.D.Ala.1962), the Alabama counties under, and the cities or urban areas parties reappor- were not suit having should be defined as the 17 towns legislature though tion the the Alabama populations 41,662. If both excess gave county rep- each Constitution one Assembly houses of the General were perceptible resentative. is no dif- There purely population, based the cities- ference Ala- between the interests populations 41,662 would con- over Georgia bama and cas- counties in those tain the- es, and the towns in would, therefore, control both survey reappor- A case. of the recent Assembly. houses of the General tionment cases indicates that the essen- As the basic issue in this case parties tial offi- defendant are the state repre- system of not whether or the unit charged administering cials in one house of a bicameral- sentation Indeed, in Mann elections of the state. when even unconstitutional (E.D.Va.1962), Davis, F.Supp. purely is based the other house governor general attorney the Virginia the small population, parties the electors de- were dismissed recently at stake whether why affords a towns reason sufficiently represen- petitioners effective expected should not can retain have been pre- pro- General seek tation in the intervention It earlier. also *43 manage why petitioners to their local vides an their added serve reason permitted should be affairs. to intervene because represents no one interests, small town They parties in interest. the real are such, areas, versus urban as such. Although approached and has the court belong town Small electors who to the solely in this case with the issues dealt as difficult law, Party, big party, Democratic or no problems in constitutional city belong Republican electors who to or immediate to either unrelated Party, party, or no should able be to have consequences, long range political party represented by their interests uncolored perfectly can- been the intervenors considerations of the immediate advan- they letting understood did in tage disadvantage any political or to stemming the case have interests party. particular from their identification political parties. Moreover, plaintiffs for the cen- are made Constitutions very petition- probably position adverse while there take turies and are certainly ers, few, provisions not that their clear of which been and it is concerns, by partisan political recom- for remedial claims relief unaffected entirely purpose consistent has been are intention and mendations the main through large system the electors to establish those desired them government, responsive of unlimited role to the needs urban centers legislative power people providing in Con- allocations controllers the governmental power unrep- such, system who, necticut, also are with a suggest that the This is not to insure the contin- resented. and balances to checks uance of that protect responsiveness not parties intervenors have and the presentations They highly competent people. de- liberties of are made the signed embody prin- tremen- have not contributed fundamental that dously to government ciples of the issues determination and to of the state contrary degree stability per- high is cer- in the case because tainly have manency. They say, however, intended, like It is to not true. every signifi- squarely change statutes, are not identified their interests meet petitioners and the con- with those social economic cant alteration large similarly They voters situated ditions. not amended should any solely to or desires of cities. meet the needs fact, political party. constitutional In Although in form the mem- modified may appear provisions to aid a bership of the Connecticut of the Houses twenty may, political party one time upon Assembly has based been General quite years later, its inter- adverse upper population in house and ests. house, system in unit the lower such, Attorney position towns, as has General taken small Electors constitutionality vitally affected adverse to the have their interests many juris- They system. are not unit case. use issues the represented now, adequate dictions, been nor is where issues have there similar attorney general courts, opposite representation num- before the large appeared role of defender The individual Cities. bers system; existing equal petitioners number from state he and an the certainly large cities, permitted required so. This is do should be position only unaffect- his their cases mentioned because intervene only issues in this case became clear extraneous interests. ed