Wells v. Rockefeller

probable, improbable, rather than find it they on the will merits. succeed

that WELLS, Plaintiff, David I. inquiry to Turning to the other ROCKEFELLER, Nelson A. as Governor granting in connection be made York, of the of New Louis J. State irreparable prospect stay, of of a Lefkowitz, Attorney as General correspond refused, and if is harm one ingly, Lomenzo, York, State P. New John is irreparable if one harm Secretary as State of of State of the any granted, balance find that we York, Wilson, New Malcolm as Lieu- grossly plaintiffs’ disfavor. equities is tenant New Governor the State of injury irreparable probability of York, Presiding Officer of the Sen- York, We make enormous. ate of Per- BRA State New is ry Duryea, Jr., Speaker B. as Pre- finding. whether We doubt further siding Assembly Officer of the any irreparable plaintiffs shown have York, Defendants, State New plaintiffs’ injury The loss of at all. involved, homes, is if that were what Brydges, Temporary Earl W. is in law President cause what would doubtless Senate, York New State regarded irreparable injury. properly Intervenor. Plaintiffs That is what involved. must, No. 66-Civ.-1976. they concede, that the loss question their homes inevitable. Court, United States District timing, only of the ade one of S. D. New York. they quacy of facilities that March length exchange. The of time fered in Judgment 18,May Affirmed remain, plaintiffs on their can even that See 90 S.Ct. 1696. best, is, claims, short. Further own satisfy more, plaintiffs failed have they adequate us will receive that hearing During the facilities. relocation open stipulated in for the BRA counsel provide in court that BRA would adequate accommoda terim suitable and period motel,

tions, hotel or appropriate

reasonably required to find facilities, and to do whatever

relocation For how

else court should order.

long if this, shall hold BRA we plaintiffs happen

it that fail should including departing

cooperate, voluntari

ly, day, presently is for another but

exists. stay beyond for a

We see no reason

Wednesday morning, 9at October select that date because o’clock. We us, find, if

counsel informs we voluntarily

plaintiffs do not leave at that time, they physically must evicted day being

forthwith, October 30 the last the defendant must enter with

equipment premises clear

contractor, or lose It will its contract.

be so ordered. “ People Supreme ‘by the of Court said nearly as means that

the several States’ in a con- practicable man’s vote one gressional to be worth election is pp.At S.Ct. 84 much as another’s.” upon con- p. this Elaborations set I, 2 have been struction of Art. § subsequent decisions in forth the various particu- and, Supreme more Court congres- larly, in those addressed districting New of of the State sional City, McKay, New York Robert B. York. plaintiff. expended in an time need be Little Atty. George Zuckerman, Asst. D. apportionment review of the historical (Louis Gen., City Lefko- York J. New population of situation. Because witz, Atty. York, York New of New Gen. changes ago, years York some ten New counsel), City, defendants. congressional from 41 was reduced 43 to City, Zimmerman, York Legislature Doanld New pre- In 1961 the seats. for intervenor. for 41 districts. scribed the lines suit, brought 1966 this June Judge, MOORE, Mac- Before Circuit attacking districting plan because CANNELLA, District MAHON and population disparities in wide Judges. court held This various districts. v. for this reason. Wells statute invalid MOORE, Judge. (1967), Circuit F.Supp. Rockefeller, 984 273 578, 421, 19 L.Ed. aff’d 88 S.Ct. 389 U.S. juris- retention of As result of the plan (1967), directed that a 651 2d diction, privi- this court has the dubious in con- promulgated be which would be lege deciding for the third time wheth- Supreme formity Court decisions Legislature er the York New State relating thereto. into divided its districts may constitutionally such units ac- be Legislature February In late ceptable Supreme Court. The plan sub- in which enacted a second Legislature order so acted an because equality was obtained stantial directing 17, 1969) (June of this court This on a sectional basis. somewhat but that the into law not “enact plan believing con- court, that the second January 30, later than a con- closely Su- more formed far gressional districting plan in com- that is preme specification of the salient pliance requirements with the into consideration taken factors be United and which States Constitution virtually on early 1968 was mindful that govern shall the election of members census, which of a 1970 the threshold Representa- United House States reapportionment any 1968 would render York in the of New tives the State despite academic, plan upheld quite general year primary in the elections shifting slight in the realization that a * * jurisdic- We retained have in a few instances would lines proceedings as to conduct further tion equality in population achieved better might compliance necessary to assure F.Supp. districts. certain “require- is no with the order. There probable Supreme noted for absolute in the ment” Constitution 115, 819, jurisdiction, 89 S.Ct. U.S. equality population con- in the various in 1969, April and on gressional requirement 21 L.Ed.2d This districts. closely decision its interpretation tied to by judicial decision created Preisler, 526, 89 Kirkpatrick 394 U.S. v. Wesberry Sanders, (1968) in- 22 L.Ed.2d (1964) wherein S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d criticisms, volving sent views this in the their reapportionment State hearing At Missouri, court directed that a be held. York’s 1968 New invalidated (en- plan I, time, plaintiff presented a statute, holding that Article effect plan) required titled “basic” which would his con- of2 the Constitution § satisfy equal repre- his to how “provide better views as gressional districts proposed people”. State His should be divided. equal numbers sentation for plan mandate, has a district variance this court Pursuant high 412,099 406,923 from low of to a Legislature new a a enact directed the Legislature’s in January contrast with the virtual- plan not later than 409,011 ly equal a conformity division of a low in Su- which preme would high being 409,324 409,814, namely, mean the requirements, “to 16,702,304. population a 1960 based on districts population in all the equalize 542, of the State.” plaintiff a As an tendered alternative 22 L.Ed.2d many “stopgap” plan in which districts unaltered, slightly Legislature al- remain several are January the On substantially tered and a few redrawn. repeal Article Seven enacted an Act Legislature’s plan He the to elimi- districting revises and to previous Act] [the according nate to his what he calls views Article Seven a new therefor substitute “partisan gerrymandering”. In fact Subsequently on (S.6266, A.1518). —but plaintiff present concedes “In the day amendment the same —an only brings plaintiff County case Queens the issue that relating passed lines. challenge signed by back to this Court is to the his were Both amendment Act and congressional districting statute on day and became the the next Governor ground legislative action, the if Chapters -6, respectively, stand, accomplish allowed to a would Laws of 1970. * * partisan gerrymander, Legislature’s to the three Fundamental short, Legislature because the has with plans, Supreme Court’s decisions accuracy remarkable com- mathematical thereon decisions is the and this court’s plied Supreme equality with the be) though hypothesis (unrealistic it (the requirements only requirements figures that the are basis 1960 census specified decision), plaintiff in its no apportionment. no for the There are longer population in- available the figures meaningful other available for arguments equality urged previous on use Not until a statewide scheme. impute occasions and would now to the will census is announced Legislature wholly political motives extent of the radical shifts be their equal creation of districts. officially plan present known.1 The be- Whether were such motive establish- adopts fore the court the 1960 census signifi- ed it would have constitutional figures throughout do as we State or cance need not be decided discussed our consideration thereof. proof unless and until that the there be Although theory this case in is an ad- actually ac- district lines were drawn to versary proceeding there in that complish an result. unconstitutional plaintiff defendants, there 409,324 persons practical merely To purposes encase within some all involves plan to this submission court kind must of district boundaries have re- opinion for its as to whether it conforms quired many the skill of draftsmen. by Supreme to the standards set They reported in turn must their re- have Court. Legislative sults to the Committee Joint plaintiff Reapportionment. Had give any persons To other properly qualified opportunity to ascertain pre- an wished what motivated change speculation may necessitating before I. There a substantial that New York lose one more thus election. or seats 101, 105 involving (1966) (cases draftsmen to divide certain cities be- A.2d charge political gerrymandering): tween exclude cer- districts or include or “ * * * cities, certainly proof tain towns and such impossible it would seem should have been available some validity pass upon for a court to source. No draftsman and no committee- political itself without interests by plaintiff. man was called making judgment political appear- ing to do so. For reasons these taking proceeded largely by Plaintiff generally view taken in this new area Republican con- and Democratic judicial activity that, if math- gressional figures election in certain acceptable, ematics are it rests excluding districts, therefrom Liberal voters, Court, to than rather party and Conservative votes and as- partisan review the soundness of the suming that these votes would be static may which in the lines decisions inhere party particular committed to the drew.” by substituting the future. Then his fixing suggested lines, boundary plaintiff own function of Legisla be, the is, for lines and should Republi- claims that certain numbers of Only vio handiwork is when their ture. cans and Democrats could be added or fundamental constitutional lative of presently subtracted from the districts as rights This the courts interfere. should drawn which would be beneficial to his legislative just prerogative is as consti conception political of the kind bal- of tutional, equal repre so, if not more ance, imbalance, or better he would which sentation, respect proper the divi for if like to achieve. executive, powers the sion of between gov legislative judiciary of and branches Specifically, singled out By way of ernment is to be maintained. eight for areas his criticism: illustration, accept plaintiff’s we to were (Queens); the 6th C.D. split proposal reject the which to the lines thereby Albany Syracuse cities of and (Nassau); 4th and 5th C.D.s improving incumbent Con the chances of (Brooklyn); the 15th and C.D.s 16th gressmen party in Democratic forthcoming elections, indeed we would (Manhattan); the 17th and 19th C.D.s entering “political and thicket”2 (Westchester-Rockland); charges subject judicial the 25th C.D. to of would be political gerrymandering. (split); City Albany of many Furthermore, for foundation City Syracuse (split); of namely, plaintiff’s arguments, 1968 of figures in certain election e., (Marginal, City i. of Rochester candidates, un- areas for certain certain). not figures (in election realistic. Recent 1968) particular in the selected areas making by cer of each these areas challenge only indicative for his redrawing assumptions tain and particular candi- reaction to a voters’ boundary lines, plaintiff believes True, throughout there date. State political can be results certain different are, be, predominantly Re- and will areas merely This, however, to achieved. publican predominantly Democratic. bring gerrymandering. his own about naive as not But court not be so this will Jersey Supreme by the New As said existence, in cer- be aware of the Burkhardt, N.J. in Koziol v. increasing strength, of tain areas (1968) quot 412, 416, parties. A.2d and Conservative Liberal parties throughout ing other Falcey, And the nation N.J. from Jones v. Green, Colegrove 90 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. being recently tip At- have into which have Fisher’s Island come many support of voters. lantic on east Lake Erie and Ocean received Republi- Pennsylvania practical approach on the For fixed west. Plaintiff’s ignores society expedient it dis- the all-im- reasons was can-Democrat factors, amongst others, trictographers portant to start at east public’s approximate- personality, to the in con- move west units candidate’s ception 409,- integrity ly 409,324. goal ability To achieve the his may espouse, possible, 324 or as was close thereto as the current which he issues opinion necessary espouse, of his con- their in- on behalf certain offer to At and other reasons we stances divide cities and counties. For this stituents. given constitutional) legal (certainly the same time find no consideration was no municipal accepting plaintiff’s specula- such basis subdivisions were opinions benefits, except own existence and to tions his statements and (19 cause, his own various witnesses in the to be derived from listed Re- port) public hearings approach.3 elicited schematic held Brooklyn, City, Albany, York New Although decision could rest occasions, Mineóla and Buffalo on five analy- plaintiff’s proof, a brief failure respectively, July 29, between 1969 and legislative justi- procedure sis of the August 19, signed report was Legislature’s plan fied. The could by eight of the twelve members of the par- have into come without existence January Committee under date of beings. ticipation many It human Albany, New York. Four members placed Legislature by before sign. did not descending from the deus ex machina (Chaps. 6, prepared on plan Debate the bills a on a Mount and heavens with Olympus. 1970) January 22, Laws of on Committee’s occurred Witness the ex- pression Assembly. both of Senate and thanks “to staff who were The arguments pro required long to work and and con were tedious hours” directed largely by plaintiff to the and areas without effort most covered whose “this dif- speakers urged project acceptance here. The rejection ficult com- or could have been pleted.” upon based af- considerations fecting their own The districts. discus- prepared Accord- plan ? was the How sion often was acrimonious but little left Report ing the Joint of “Interim to the speakers’ doubt as to the beliefs con- Reapportion- Legislative on Committee cerning the merits or demerits of the January York, Albany, New ment” dated plan. passed by The party bills were a thereto, there appendices and vote of both houses. of the Committee were twelve members non-signing mem- was four This No one and Committee seven staff. a called as first was by bers of the Committee concurrent resolutions created subsequently paper “Affi- entitled adopted witness. Instead a March signed May 2, members—but to March davit” of only four to continue account, gives by that to show report two—was introduced an 1970. Their during they only to this had been consulted made available account legislation. fixing preparation In ad- court, of the the rationale behind Briefly four-page boundary entitled adopted. dition a statement lines of the Legislative Legisla- “Minority Report of Joint stated, and the the Committee constants, Reapportionment” i. dated Committee February certain ture to deal with had al- districts, per introduced e., population was mean though substantiating proof to estab- no topographical 409,324, district of competency presented. How- extending was lish shape its of New York State Currently predictions previous 26 Demo- realized. there are 3. as to the re- Dire Congressmen Republican. plan increasing districting and 15 cratic Re- insofar publican strength apparently were not ever, transcripts issue, unnecessary in both of the debates we find it to resolve question. to were made available Senate House this there Since has been no proof presented any gerrymander, court. Pltf’s 3 and Exhs. plaintiff’s speculations other than as to obviously plan, where Reverting to the might what have motivated indi- large county or city was too or one one Assemblymen vidual Senators- and single invasion some unit too small voting bills, any opinion ex- had to neighboring district into a pressed upon hypothesis gerry- indicated Supreme had made. gratui- mander would be ill-founded and to political unit lines were former tous. equality to be subordinated now transportational facilities summary, modern no evidence has Illustrative presented former barriers.4 overcame been to us to indicate that a good where is the 25th C.D. comply this situation faith effort to with the necessary fill Supreme out the it was deemed Court’s mandate has not been Hudson course, myriad on the east side plans made. Of segments popula- pick up River could have been drafted. fewA thou people west selected tion on the side. areas sand could have been moved here Tappan but, previously connected in one case stated, there Bridge closely adjacent question the other Zee plan sole before us is: does the Bridge. comply Bear Mountain enacted with the mandate of Supreme Our Court? answer is that goal meet of mathematical To it does. equality in which in a State three-judge This court has now ful- widely, density varies obligations filled its proceed- to conduct boundary cope lines drawn had ings plan and to examine the to assure recogni accomplish result. Some compliance Supreme with the undoubtedly given pat tion mandate and this court’s own order plans. How in antecedent tern laid out June Accordingly, approves design ever, geometric nicety must plan enacted and as amended as give way equality. A to numerical series conformity require- with Constitutional rectangles perfect squares, even complaint. ments and dismisses the containing 409,324 triangles, per each sons, map placed upon a could not be Judge CANNELLA, (concur- District districts New York State so that 41 ring part dissenting part). in in congruously There fit would therein. finding concur in I that on the fore, shapes curious were bound re to figures basis of 1960 census the New But not for court to sult. is this di Legislature fully York State com- possessed compe if rect —even we plied I, with “the command of 2 Art. § straighten a tence —the Constitution], the U. [of S. that States here, or line bend it there include or ex congressional pro- create districts which clude various in towns a manner differ equal representation equal vide for num- ing plans from the as drawn. people,” permit- bers of such command Finally, ting “only in their briefs limited vari- questions defendants both discuss the despite ances which are unavoidable a jurisdiction good-faith justiciability po- effort to achieve absolute gerrymander equality, accept justification litical issue. We or for which is jurisdiction. Despite Kirkpatrick Preisler, shown.” serious doubts as v. 394 justiciability 526, gerrymander 531, 1225, 1229, U.S. 89 S.Ct. 22 Reynolds Sims, 533, 580, v. U.S. 84 377 1960’s most claims that deviations from 1362, 1391, (1964) population-based representation S.Ct. 12 L.Ed.2d 506 : can valid- developments improve- ly solely geographical “Modern be based con- transportation ments in and communica- siderations.” hollow, in tions make rather the mid- 54 concurring Kirkpatrick, opinion (1969); in Rockefeller Wells v. L.Ed.2d 519 542, gerrymandering III”], U.S. Fortas “Wells 394 Justice defined [hereinafter arbitrary 535 as deliberate and distor- 22 L.Ed.2d “the 89 S.Ct. popula- (1969). tion of district achievement of the consti boundaries This partisan political goal personal or man-one vote” tions purposes.” “one tutional clearly precision1 at fore 394 U.S. mathematical congres stalls, only year’s I this understand the essence of if for this challenge gerrymandering election, legal any and most definitions of sional valid partisan process Legislature’s plan political which to be a

to the population on the basis given electoral equality. districts determined. process, clearly Such which to be dis- is however, very fact, now that there The tinguished configura- the district equal nearly exists absolute numerical shapes resulting therefrom, tions or is an ity, coupled this retention tendency of inevitable and inextricable jurisdiction with Leg conformance to assure party politics. And fact that this our Order of June 1969 that process hardly continues to is materialize “a district islature enact ing plan unlikely long or unusual so members compliance with the that political parties legisla- constitute state requirements Con of the United States specific which have tures both constitu- stitution,” require that thiá Court deal tional authorization administer con- present plaintiff’s with the merits of gressional primary elections5 and re- challenge,2 as fol which he articulates sponsibility apportionment lows: Reynolds Sims, districts. Cf. v. per The issue in this is the sole case 12 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 506 missibility or not Constitu under the logical way prevent this congres tion the United States of recurring would materialization seem districting sional partisan advantage.3 lines drawn for change present system. be to But change might what effect have is de- plaintiff’s thorny contention ap- batable view of the fact that all Legislature’s represents partisan action portionment “political” to the extent gerrymandering this neither new “every wittingly line un- drawn judicial case4 nor in others. Much ef wittingly political will have a effect dif- already expended fort has been this equally ‘equal’ ferent from another attempting thicket to deal with this issue. equally available line.”6 See, g., Gately, F.Supp. e. v. Sincock (D.Del.1967); Avery, political Meeks v. To deal with the ramifica- F.Supp. (D.Kan.1966); plaintiff’s challenge v. Mar par- Bush tions of to this tin, F.Supp. (S.D.Tex.1966); process tisan would turn (M.D. Baggett, precisely F.Supp. Sims Ala.1965). legislature is, into what a state judiciary but what the federal should not 1. The overlooks, the districts within otherwise excellent brief how- ever, Adams, 440, 443, State of York New are now all within Swann v. 385 U.S. percent popula- 569, (1967). of one of the mean 87 S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d 501 %th districts, 409,324. tion largest the for all The Memorandum, p. 3. Plaintiff’s 8. is district the 34th with a O.D. Term, Supreme population 409,814 the Last Court did not of or above 0.12% express any nor reach view on the merits the The mean. smallest is the by plaintiff. of attack 409,011 this the See 41st a Wells C.D. with of or Rockefeller, v. 394 U.S. 89 6, S.Ct. below the mean. See chs. 5 & 0.07% 1234, (1969). 22 L.Ed.2d 535 passim. [1970] Sess. Laws N.Y. 8-29 argue plaintiff 2. Defendants that lacks X, 5. U.S.Const. art. 4.§ standing bring to De- action. See Support Dixon, fendants’ Constitutionality Memorandum of the The Warren Court Crusade For Chapters Holy of Vote,” 5 6 Grail of “One Man-One 1970, pp. Sup.Ct.Rev. of 219, Laws This 21-22. 1969 244-45.

55 g., See, question’s presence. The doc- e. litical be, namely, political forum. a “po- is of opinion Clark trine of which we treat one concurring of Justice “politi- questions,” not one of dissenting opinion litical of Justice 217, 82 S.Ct. Carr, cal 369 U.S. eases.” 369 U.S. v. in Baker Frankfurter added). (emphasis 691, L.Ed. at 710 259-260, 267, 7 186, already (1962). Court This 2d 663 plaintiff Thus, failed have found that pawn political a refused to become proof really his to sustain ourden of is Rockefeller, 281 v.Wells this case. begged See preliminary question, to have (S.D.N.Y.1968). 821, F.Supp. 825 namely, judicially there a dis whether is hearing Nevertheless, held on the a manageable standard coverable 9, 1970. present on March action Certainly, begin I think not. with. Legislature, major- ordering for readily members of the concur with I could example, participate parties completely finding defend ity’s plaintiff that regarding appear in a ant as witnesses prove his contentions failed and/or judicial proceeding herein like the one of partisan motives manageable hardly finding a implicit that seems to be stand a it in such were plaintiff Kerner, by v. 241 F. ard. Cf. Germano raised overall issue 715, per Supp. (N.D.Ill.), respectfully dis- vacated 717 justiciable. I must is Germano, process curiam 381 partisan sub nom. v. Scott I find the sent since 407, purely a 14 L.Ed.2d gerrymandering U.S. S.Ct. to be that (1965). fact, present In action makes therefore politics. This case matter of why abundantly on clear since Fletcher v. requires reopening the book a now (6 Cranch) 87, Peck, 10 U.S. L.Ed. questions” was shelved “political which repeatedly pointed (1810), “it“ has been Brennan’s Justice in Baker v. Carr. Mr. regarding ques- summary out it is of the fed such that business oft-cited inquire personal eral courts into as follows: tions reads nor, legislators,”7 for motives of any case surface Prominent matter, inquiry into should be made question is political held involve a plaintiff. partisan motives textually demonstrable consti- found a gerrymandering process that to a of the issue commitment tutional political justiciable question for and non or political department; coordinate proper lack of a standard. judicially discoverable a lack of it; resolving manageable standards argues, course, deciding impossibility of with- or the justiciable. He re- issue he raises is policy out an initial determination Wright Rockefeller, fers the Court to v. clearly judicial non discre- a kind 11 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. tion; impossibility of a court’s or the Lightfoot, (1964), Gomillion undertaking independent resolution U.S. S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d respect expressing without lack of But the cornerstone of both govern- due coordinate branches these Amend- decisions is the Fifteenth ment; un- an need for or unusual Wright, ment to the Constitution. political questioning de- adherence to Supreme three-judge affirmed already made; poten- cision disposition district court’s of a claim tiality multi- of embarrassment gerrymandering racial on the basis pronouncements various farious Although proof.8 court failure neither question. departments on one specifically to the issue addressed itself claim, justiciability their is of the of the formulations one of these Unless bar, certainly implies dealing proof with the at case inextricable justiciable. contrary infer- non- that A is no dismissal for there should be ground impermissible po- ence justiciability is all but in view on the F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1962). Carr, J., dissenting, 8. Harlan, See 211 460 Baker v. 369 7. 691, L.Ed.2d 82 S.Ct. 7 U.S. 663 56 gerrymander. temptation Another to See XV. Amendment the dictate of Preisler, District, Kirkpatrick how- at

three-judge in this v. 394 U.S. 534 court 4, 1225, issue ever, to the n. 89 22 L.Ed.2d 519. See itself S.Ct. did address gerry- Harlan, J., III, herein, partisan dissenting, wit, 394 also Wells raised 552, mandering, 1234, at- that such at 22 535. it ruled U.S. 89 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. questions under tacks not raise “do hearing, plaintiff At the indicated ”* * * WMCA, Federal Constitution suspected gerrymandering that he that 916, Lomenzo, F.Supp. 925 Inc. v. place had taken after had scrutinized he Supreme (S.D.N.Y.1965). af- configurations shapes or 4, curiam, 86 S.Ct. per 382 U.S. firmed various new He districts. claimed (1965), with Justice 24, 15 L.Ed.2d have found a number with un- of districts concurring opinion writing Harlan configurations. course, usual Of he interpreted af- the Court’s he wherein needed to look no than his own further affirming necessarily firmance Congressional 6th District [hereinafter ruling gerrymander district court’s ing. original “C.D.”], shape which new 24. at 86 S.Ct. See U.S. overnight grotesquely was distorted gerrymandering But issue does amending legislative an wave of the ap appear the crux of the to have been Compare Ap- Appendix wand. pendix C Nevertheless, peal. a number of district necessity, D. Of the contortions issue, albeit courts with the same faced simultaneously of the Sixth became those manner, inconsequential in a likewise surrounding districts, wit, finding in that have gerrymandering on Lomenzo relied Third, Eighth.9 Seventh and See, justiciable. is not politics plaintiff Aficionado of that the Baggett, F.Supp. g., at e. Sims v. obviously is, apparently he then wielded F.Supp. 104-105; Avery, 251 Meeks v. conjuring congres- up his own wand in Martin, F.Supp. 250-251; at Bush v. sional districts for the entire State F.Supp. 513; Gately, at Sincock v. population suit own his tastes. That relying on In addition to 828-833. easily manipulated can statistics Lomenzo, inter the court in also Sincock very never been doubted. What is def- preted per Supreme curiam initely doubt, however, whether is appeal of a for “want dismissal of the plaintiff’s proposed “Basic Plan” Badgley question” in substantial federal improve- represents State as a whole an Hare, Legislature’s ment looking plan. over the In (1966), requiring the con L.Ed.2d figures, both at forms I cog gerrymandering clusion that Legislature’s find that it is not. The Amend nizable the Fourteenth under plan clearly superior.10 overall Never- F.Supp. at 832-833. ment. See 262 See theless, specific proposals several of the Dixon, also Court Crusade The Warren plaintiff’s contained alternative Holy For the of “One Man-One Grail “Stopgap Plan” have merit. Vote,” Sup.Ct.Rev. 219, In 255-256. however, above, none of these cases stating suspect how he came that gerrymandering the issue of sole engaged gerry- had persuaded But I am not determinative. mandering, precisely hit on other would have courts decided justiciable post-equal- what in this regard partisan otherwise with ity redistricting controversy, namely, process they had been this Court’s configuration result of present position equal- of mathematical partisan process. Just “one man- demanding ity. equality, represents judicially And in one vote” dis- manageable standard, coverable and there Supreme unmindful Court was not 9-10, N.Y. 25 Compare 11-12, passim. ch. with ch. ^{[1970] [1970]} Sess.Laws N.Y. Sess.Laws less Memorandum. See Indeed, plaintiff’s equal generally than those of the Appendix A of Plaintiff’s Legislature. figures

57 lacking regard “crazy quilts, completely in ra- a standard also such is compact tionality” implies contiguity that wild district con- and configuration: figurations constitutionally are not ac- I, the Consti 4 of Section ness. Article Congress ceptable. 568, 377 U.S. at 84 S.Ct. 1362 specifically authorizes tution congres three-judge regarding, at A regulations 1385. court for enact of North of the state Middle District' Carolina re- those alter elections or sional authority, cently held: legislatures. to this Pursuant required early 1842, that Congress, as * ** necessary It is not to a deci- Rep House of districts election sion of this case to determine whether 491, contiguous, Stat. 5 be resentatives congress- a motive to retain incumbent in its requirement restated and legitimate men is a consideration 1862, July 14, districting 12 Stat. Act of redistricting. simply We hold it that and in 190111 enactments 572. Similar may predominate require- over the required that the districts 191112 practicable ments of equality, and we compact contiguous, and only but be also compactness think contiguity that and equal nearly practicable an contain as aspects practicable are equality. re The last number of inhabitants. has, course, already found quirement The tortuous lines which delineate specific application in bar. the case at many the boundaries of of the con- supra; Preisler, Kirkpatrick III, gressional v. Wells proposed districts under the 1, Sanders, Wesberry 84 S.Ct. v. 376 U.S. plan, resulting compactness lack of * * * 526, Contiguity (1964). 11 L.Ed.2d 481 contiguity and compels compactness require have also been tous hold [sic] that York Joint ments this case. The New apportionment constitutionally in- Legislative Reapportion Committee on valid.14 19, January on “The ment stated 1970: contiguous A has been de- attempt has an committee made earnest fined as “one in which possible it is contigu compact to make districts any travel between two locations 13 within Indeed, specifically ous.” this Court leaving without pres- the district. The instructed in 1967 to ence or contiguity absence of can be substantially “divide the State into 41 simply determined by glancing at a dis- equal parts, provided they reasonably map. trict There concept is no of ‘best’ compact contiguous.” Wells v. contiguity.”15 Since the constitutional Rockefeller, (S.D. F.Supp. 984, 273 991 requirement absolute N.Y.), per curiam, aff’d equality case, has been met in this com- (1967). 19 L.Ed.2d 651 pactness essentially ques- Compact contiguous territory become districts legitimate part plane geometry. Starting tion on desire Reynolds Sims, states. v. axiom the circle com- U.S. is the most 1362, 12 pact plane figure given perim- L.Ed.2d 506. While S.Ct. within a clearly laboring eter, concept accepting premise with the of “one geo- man-one Supreme vote” in Reynolds, circle should therefore serve as figure invalidity reference to the of metric of reference in determin- Cong., (1969). 11. Stat. 733. See S. 91st 1st Sess. Congressional Apportionment- Celler, also 12. 37 Stat. 13. Future, Past, Con- Law & Present Report 13. Legislative Interim of the Joint (1952). temp.Prob. 268 Reapportionment, p. Committee F.Supp. 922, Seawell, Drum (1970). today’s Congress That also added). (M.D.N.C.1966) (emphasis requirements not unmindful of these evidenced, .Hess, example, by for Non- A Procedure Ed- Senator Weaver & Development Kennedy’s partisan Districting: year ward M. introduction last Techniques, listing Computer contiguity L.J. in the Yale Senate of bill compactness districting n. 10 standards. Sincock, degree districts,16 Roman v. ing the compactness of (1964). given L.Ed.2d 620 would S.Ct. compactness a district of of points by of the number be determined Taking objectionable in the districts by a capable of connection in straight district the sequence, Fourth and numerical running entirely within line Chapter con- 5th in C.D.’s envisioned district. 409,- of that 409,369 confines populations of and tain total contiguity respectively. The 5th District of Applying the standards clearly compact, configurations quite Fourth is but the compactness to the and just clearly compact by not at all. See as congressional drawn districts proposed Appendix con- in Plaintiff’s generally A. Legislature, find most to be I figurations (Ap- given for two districts these initial conformity therewith, hand, pendix represent B), equality. the other population Sev- requirement roughly high degree conform, equal of com- and clearly not do eral districts however, configurations, pactness. such disregarding With the obvious even 409,- 4th would C.D. have impediments to strict unavoidable 409,485. Fifth, 227 and the defend- contiguity of water. to various bodies due dispute figures, nor 16th, 21st, 25th, 27th, ants any these 7th, did 11th, “Stop- in the example, others contained divided C.D.’s, all are 28th for gap by Plan.” The increased statistical way in one or another water. variance, miniscule, which is to be seems hearing, defendants, At justified by greater more much than plaintiff’s summarizing, characterized degree compactness the 4th Dis- “simplistic”, with and indeed case as trict. clearly exposed they justification, as doubt, sophism. plaintiff’s political I originally The Sixth and the 8th C.D.’s however, approach- plaintiff that even a relatively Chapter set compact forth 5 were sagaciousness ing political de- populations of and contained carry the would ever be able to fendants 409,397 409,330 respectively. See necessary proof substantial burden of Appendix C. The simultaneous amend- This, through political cut thicket. ing C.D.’s, required of these which also ma- course, which the is the burden adjustments minor to the Third and 7th jority plaintiff meet. failed to finds the Districts, grotesque resulted in and de- However, what I find in this case be configurations cidedly noncompact justiciable configuration, and is district Eighth popula- and the Sixth relatively simple standards of con- 409,256 409,312 respectively. tions of tiguity compactness not to re- seem Appendix See D. That the quire'any on a substantial burden at all arbitrary unjusti- itself felt that this proper party plaintiff. aWhen might judicially fied amendment grotesque point can districts with suspect is evident from the inclusion shapes appear which on their face to be savings amending Act of a clause suspect, the State to the burden shifts to (Section Chapter 6). 2 of I find the justify just them shifts to State Sixth and 8th forth in C.D.’s set See, justify population. variances constitutionally invalid, Act to be and I g., Kirkpatrick Preisler, supra. e. require would two these Districts (and Seventh) the Third and reassume “Stopgap points to Plan” Plaintiff’s configurations originally contem- newly adopted con- a figurations number plated (in 5). Chapter readily remind one which contiguous strictly The 16th Elbridge C.D. is Gerry and for which defend- gave any the obvious reason Staten Island justification no ants “free yet (by figures) does not have taint of arbitrariness discrimination.” portionment, J.PokSci. See, g., Roeck, Measuring Compact- 5 Midwest e. Requirement Legislative Ap- ness enough comprise people in itself a ness of the as drawn 27th C.D. Legislature, district, plaintiff’s stopgap I find the island but proposal regard directly the rest of to the 25th connected to C.D. unacceptable by Narrows be in a the Verrazano since would result Sixteenth regard significant configura- Bridge. with is not obvious distortion of the What why District, however, C.D., among the tion the 27th An to others. this essentially dividing from the of it horizontal snake-like demarcation line so necessary. adjoining County I find much of 15th C.D. is southern Rockland straight necessary adopt would be to maintain that it is not and would Twenty-Fifth’s by plain- present proposed line delimitation 409,418 Appendix populations purpose E. would serve the of mak- tiff. See ing Chapter Twenty-Fifth two Districts under both the and 27th 16-409,381. 15-409,885; compact, The sta- C.D.’s more are: and with minimal change proposed for read: effort tistics involved. And the 25th C.D. 15-409,329; 16-409,437. would contiguous, be albeit trans-Hudson. require Legislature I would make to (pop. 409,369) on C.D. While the 17th such an effort to redraw the Rockland relatively compact, Manhattan County line of demarcation for the two 409,348) neighboring (pop. Nineteenth by April 3, 1970; Districts failure do anything Appendix F. Here See but. by so time would result this easily again, be these two Districts could drawing such a line. defend- by compact simply equally made but all explanation why ants’ Rockland beginning dividing horizontally, them on County split up was so was that the Hudson River at 33rd Street Town Stony between Point and Clarks- proceeding east on to Third 33rd Street town, namely Haverstraw, large too Street, Avenue, north 34th and then population-wise appended to be in its River. east on 34th to the East Street entirety Clarkstown-Orangetown, Appendix See G. Stony may whereas Point could be. This true, but I remind the by Legisla- adopted The 25th C.D. observance political of distinct subdivi- contiguous compact. ture is neither nor sions is acceptable justification not an Appendix See H. It consists three population,17 variances in and this non-contiguous parts, West- applies requirements rationale of con- segment connected to the Clarks- chester town-Orangetown segment by tiguity compactness. Tappan I Bridge. segment, plaintiff’s find spe- the rest of Reaching Zee the third proposals cific Stony Point, requires “Stopgap his other two Plan” not improvement traversing be an part Legisla- C.D., 27th anything, ture’s parts districts. If Twenty-Sixth of both his other 27th proposed generally districts are com- C.D.’s were one to cross the Hudson on less pact Bridge Legis- than adopted by the ones the Bear Mountain from the segment. lature. Westchester The new 21st C.D., by way comparison, con- To also grant summarize the relief I would essentially segments, sists case, of three one this I would order that the dis- Bronx, configurations each in the Manhattan trict proposed by the Queens, bridge ample there following but con- for the C.D.’s be used nections, superimposing circle on the 1970 election: 4th Twenty-First surprisingly (Appendix shows a 5th B); 6th and 8th high degree compactness. (Appendix C); Such is (Straight 15th and 16th regard Twenty- the case with line to the Appendix demarcation shown in general E); compact- Fifth. In view of the 17th (Appendix G). and 19th I gee Kirkpatrick Preisler, (1969) ; Rockefeller, 394 U.S. Wells v. 89 S.Ct. 22 L.Ed.2d 519 L.Ed.2d 535. drawn realign districts all other I find Legislature to order

would constitutionally ac- Legislature to be opin- conform the 25th C.D. ceptable. ion.

Case Details

Case Name: Wells v. Rockefeller

Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York

Date Published: May 18, 1970

Citation: 311 F. Supp. 48

Docket Number: 66-Civ.-1976

Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.