*1 HUGHES al. v. WMCA, INC., et al. et February 1, Decided 1965* John H. Hughes, se, pro for appellants in No. 623. B. Sand, .Lеonard Gross, Max Leo Larkin, A. Jack B. n Weinsteinand Robert B. McKay appellees 623. No, Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, R. D. Mcllwaine III, Assistant Attorney General, David J. Mаys and Henry T. Wickham for appellants in No. 718.
Edmund D. Campbell and E. A. Prichard for Mann et al., and Henry E. Howell, Jr., Leonard B. Sachs H. Sidney Kelsey for Glanville et al., appelleеs in No. 718.
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm granted are and. judgments are affirmed. Goldberg Justice White аnd Mr.
Mr. join the affirmance in No. 623 since it is their understanding that it in no way interferes with power оf the District Court, in the of light as they circumstances may develop, to vacate or .otherwise modify its order requiring an election in the fall of 1965.
Mr. Justice Harlan, whom Mr. Justice Clark joins, dissenting.
Both of these cases, today affirmed summarily Court, raise problems serious concerning the scope *Together with 718, Davis, No. Secretary, Statе Board Elec tions, et al. v. al., et appeal Mann on from the' United States District Court for the Eastern Virginia. District of relief interim a federal discretion hitherto not matters cases, reapportionment in state decided-by
No, 623. *2 that provides Ill, 2,§ Art. Constitution, York The New years, two every elected will be Legislature State the the sessiоns Between sessions. annual for serving two conducting committee, in works normally Legislаture fol at the submitted be to reports drafting hearings and Lomenzo, 377 U. S. WMCA, v. Inc. In lowing session. аpportion legislative York New held the 633, this Court Amendment, the Fourteenth under invalid formulа ment appro for Court to the District cause the remanded and authorized things; the Court Among other priate relief. Novem the permit to in its discretion Court the District appor invalidated the under proceed to 1964 elections ber an Legislаture York New the give to “in order tionment legislative constitutionally valid a opрortunity to at 655. S., . .” U. . . 377 plan apportionment a 1964, decree entered 27, July Court, on Distriсt The conducted be to elections 1964 the November permitting the limiting term the but plаn, the invalidated under that ordered also The decree year. one to Lеgislature ap a valid under 1965 in November held be an election by Legislature by enacted the be to plan, portionment 1965 in elected Legislature the that and 1965,* 1, Aрril that, November the so year one only serve also would law. state by as schеduled held be would election conduct have York New order result aAs normal fоrgo ye^-., many as elections three sessions. between Legislature work of reсently has Legislature, York by the New plan, enacted a *Such District approved been
Virginia elects its lower house, the House of Delegates, every years to serve for one biennial session of the General Assembly. The is Senate elеcted for years four to serve during two sessions of the General Assembly which are hеld each January following the election of the House of Delegates. In Nоvember 1962 the District Court held the Virginia apportionment of both houses unconstitutionаl, and enjoined any further elections under plan. invalidated Pending appeal to this Court, The Chief stayed the injunction of the Court, District and the 1963. elections were hеld under the invalidated plan. After the District Court was affirmed on the merits, Davis Mann, v. 377 U. 678, S. that a еntered decree on September 18, 1964, directing the General Assembly to reaрportion in time for the November 1965 election of the House Delegates, аnd *3 ordered further that a special election be held at the same time to elect a properly apportioned Senate to serve for years. Thus the present Senate, elected in Novem ber 1963 to serve for four yeаrs, has been limited to a two- year term, and the Senate to be elected nеxt November also, be so limited.
The orders of the District Courts entered in these two present cases for me important questions which deserve plenary consideration by this Court. I would prob- note able jurisdiction in both cases and set them for argument on the practicable earliest date at argument next session of the Court commencing March 1.