Wright v. Rockefeller

QQ4 City Wright, Bruce McM. New York Quinones, (James WRIGHT, Edwards, Quinlan, L. Horacio M. Elsie M.

Yvette Cartagena, Ra Bolden, Benny George City, Darwin Cohen, M. New Erazo, Blorneva Diaz, Joseph R. mon brief), plaintiffs. for ’ Dubin, McDermott, Selby, Seth Lo Walsh . Atty. Lefkowitz, uis J. Gen. of New all individually and on behalf all York, Albany, Irving Y., Galt, N. Asst. situated, similarly Plaintiffs persons Gen., Raab, Deputy Sol. Sheldon Asst. Atty. Gen., counsel, defendants, Rockefeller, A. Louis Lefko J. ROCKEFELLER, Governor Nelson A. Nelson Simon, witz, and K. Caroline York, J. Lefko New Louis the State of Larkin, Corp. Leo A. Counsel of Attorney State witz, General of the City Offner, Simon, Secre Benjamin York, York, of New Caroline K. New York, tary of the State of Corp. Counsel, of State counsel, Asst. fendants, de Power, M. Mahon, J. James and Denis Mahon, Denis M. J. James Mallee, and Thomas John R. Crews Power, John R. Crews Thomas constituti of Elections Commissioners Mallee Commissioners of the Board City ng o f Board of Elections of City Elections of New York. York, Defendants, of New Chance, Sandifer, Jawn A. William C. Seavey, Jr., Jones, Clayton Powell, Raymond Robert W. Morris Steren- J. Adam Mark Lloyd Jack, Hulan E. Dickens, buch, City, E. New York for defendant- Mendez, Defend and Antonion Southall intervenors. ant-Intervenors. MOORE, Judge, Before Circuit States District United Court FEINBERG, MURPHY and S. D. New York. Judges. Nov. Judge. MOORE, Circuit bring allegedly this action deprivation,

“t0 redress the under color York, law of the state of New rightSj privileges and se- immunities cured to under the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States and portion declare unconstitutional that question 0f the State statute in deprives rights, of privileges and spe- immunities”. More cifically,they claim that the action arises under Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments of the Constitution the (42 States, Rights United the Civil Act 1983, 1988 U.S.C. and under 28 §§ U.S.C. 2281). 1343,2201,2202 and The relief §§ sought three-judge is that a constitu- case; court hear tional and determine the portion Chapter 980 of the York, Law, 1961 Laws of New State §§ 110-112, describes boundaries 17th, 18th, Congres- 19th and sional Districts tional; declared he unconstitu- injunction Feldman, Orans, preliminary that a Jerome T. is- N. Justin against Bloustein, Drachsler, primary Sep- sue Leo Edward election on J. M. general less election less and than the 19th and the tember 14% 15.4% allegations have of such than the 20th. These basis on boundaries; November length injunction because permanent been set forth at some a that ascertaining necessity redistricting whether issue; a that unless they proof. an elec- made, have been there be established four districts County for large in New York tion at opening At indi- trial six of the County; Congressional seats in said four Ray- viduals, Clayton Powell, Adam J. action, legislative and absent such that Lloyd Dickens, Jones, E. mond Huían E. special re- appoint master to a the court Mendez, Jack, Mark Antonio Southall and districts four define the boundaries They counsel moved to intervene. question. in represented duly enrolled were to be allege they reside that Party and members of the Democratic registered re- these and voters in are comprising district leaders of area brings spective and that each districts Assembly 12th, 11th, 13th and 14th and all other action on behalf his own Powell, Clayton Districts. Adam gro, Ne- respective districts. residents serving Congressman they from now They ask, as because of their claim Congressional (pre-1961) Dis- ““fairly adequately represent” these granted. The registered voters, trict. Intervention was con- other this thereupon their an- intervenors served sidered a “class suit”. alleging intervening swer as defendants 980) (Chap. portion of the statute amongst which, mat- six defenses according establishes, under attack ters, plaintiffs represented denied that discriminatory “irrational, plaintiffs, belong the class to which intervenors Congressional unequal in the Districts redistricting and that the four eligi- County segregates York and of New Congressional question in de- Districts origin”. place ble race and voters prived plaintiffs of their constitutional charge that Con- Plaintiffs gressional the 17th rights. they As al- defenses affirmative District was “contrived” leged, substance, test Con- that the citizens exclude “non-white citizens and gressional representation is based on origin” Rican Puerto and that race, rather than 18th, 19th and 20th “have been Legislature Republican-controlled drew overwhelming drawn to include the as so “along parti- the new district boundaries non-white number of citizens and citizens political san lines rather than racial origin County of Puerto Rican many lines” to “cut out democrats as They also York”. assert that they possibly judgment could”, that “over-represented” 18th, 17th is and the sought by plaintiffs place jeop- “under-represented”. 19th and 20th are ardy rights Negroes the constitutional situation, plaintiffs say, representation has This and Puerto Ricans to many years, County-wide Congress, existed for that there have that a election at repeated energetic large Negroes “deprive been efforts Puerto legislative abridge- repre- seek correction and other Ricans minorities of fair plaintiffs’ rights equal protection ment of constitutional under sentation law”, proper but that have been of no avail “be- that this is not a class ac- existing tion, party cause of the unconstitutional “the real in interest in apportionment Legislature County is the law suit Democratic this York”; Legisla- County State of New York”, of New Committee ture in successive statutes has redrawn said Committee which intervenors ap- district never authorized boundaries accordance members are plaintiffs’ action, plain- proved and that shifts non-white bringing populations estopped Rican and that the has tiffs 18th, less than the failure to action because com- 12% Bequest during withdrawn trial. June after nominating state shall briefly Committee it until time be created”. The menee some history date reviewed the Con- 1962 the initial n gressional system petitions. as follows: trial, presented cer- On the days early Repub- In the of the gathered from tain statistical material by lic, some of the states elected maps figures the 1960 and various census large. districts and some at County). (New of Manhattan Island York representation, desire for how- local request for court, At counsel the the of ever, gradually adoption led to the maps Attorney-General the submitted by of method the ma- showing Congressional many dis- jority By 1842, of of the states. changes proof was trict No since 1911. the states entitled more one than by specific any party offered electing Representative, 22 were by Chapter boundaries 980 were created districts, Representatives by their Legis- drawn on racial lines or that the large. electing 6 were at by of lature was motivated considerations electing by practice of As the country origin race, creed in creat- of firmly established, districts became ing entirely rely Plaintiffs the districts. Congress, connection with upon analyses of cer- and version succeeding apportionments Repre of impute tain statistics and among states, enacted sentatives Legislature draw inferences setting statutes for the standards therefrom. Representatives within election of Eighteenth Decennial Census After the the several states. In connection taken, (1960) had been the President with each decennial 1840 census from according (2 2a) trans- to law U.S.C. § 1910, exception with Congress a under statement mitted to Congress 1850, census of enacted a showing 10, January 1961 date of law of this of character. The last persons in of each number State August these laws the Act of Representatives which number of “the (2 8, 2) (37 1911 U.S.C.A. Stat. § entitled under an each State be 13), provided L. that districts existing apportionment number of contiguous should of consist Representatives of the method compact territory and contain as equal proportions. The statement nearly practicable equal as an num 179,323,175 a total closed ber of inhabitants. There was no 16,782,304 for the United States apportionment Act after the census Apportioning New York State. the 435 permanent 1920. The act June Congressional amongst Representatives original 18, (46 13), 1929 Stat.L. as States, New became entitled to ly enacted and as amended the Act previously 41 of the 43 instead allotted April 25, (2 2a) 1940 U.S.C.A. § census. under (54 162), Stat.L. contained stand no required change, a result of this As for the ards creation of districts. Legislative Broom, the Joint Committee Re- 1, In Wood v. apportionment 1, 131, Second submitted to the 77 L.Ed. S.Ct. case involv Extraordinary ing Congressional Session the New York the creation Legislature on November apportionment 1961 its after the un report (see McKinney’s

interim Session Supreme der Act of York, 1962, 63, .64) provisions at Laws held Court legisla- it. stated the need requiring wherein Act of that districts action, namely, contiguous compact because of the tive terri Congressional and, nearly tory practicable reduction seats all as Representatives population, applied equal the State would have to dis large elected at to be “unless new dis- be formed under the tricts Act exceeding Colegrove Green, tricts number the num- 1911. In Representatives apportioned ber of U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. ject. ten to urged act Variations average popu- twenty per cent from creating Congressional districts sub sug- per lation district have been stantially unequal in gested violating After from time time. Four invalid held study, your considerable Committee Federal teenth Amendment decided that a maximum variation Su case the Constitution. average per pop- of fifteen cent from preme opinion, after its Court in Broom, district, ulation citing variation .approval Wood Aca- recommended the American supra, not within stated that it was demy grant Political and en- Science competence the the of court by Truman, dorsed former President by Plaintiffs. asked relief preserve equality substantial cases, various Since the above population permit of and considera- in Con- introduced bills have been given important tion to be gress fol- provide to be standards community factors such as of inter- legislatures in lowed state preservation est and tradi- of creating Congressional districts. tional associations. enacted None of those been bills has keeping In the districts addition to time, present At there- into law. proposed the maxi- in bill within its fore, are no Federal standards there per varia- mum the fifteen cent of creating binding upon in the states average per population dis- tion from Congressional districts, there and trict, your cre- Committee has also found in are no such standards to be contiguous proposed of ated districts the Constitution statutes of New territory pre- and has endeavored York. metropolitan areas serve the several The Committee then set forth single in districts of the or, either state preparing standards used its it in large populations made where stating: proposed bill, contiguous impossible, in and closely and allied of Federal districts. absence In the statutory and constitutional State City singled York New out governing creation of standards Congressional districts, special comment as follows: your Com- attempt mem- assist an obliged deter- been mittee has Legislature in their of bers analysis any, what, if itself mine for given consideration 'of the adopted it standards should by your Metropolitan York New preparation a bill to be point out like we Committee your Honorable recommended to population New York your the conclusion Bodies. is according City 1960 Federal to the important the most Committee 7,781,984. 19 census decennial equality is substantial standard been created districts population. average population City an with equality population exact While 409,578 per The remainder district. that, ideal, ideal is an it is practical population has a state reasons, can never be at- 9,000,400 has 22 districts with from it will variation Some tained. average per population of an necessary. question always population total district. permissible as to what is arises Dividing 16,782,384. this state variation. fair by 41, the total population number average gives Representatives, an examined re- has Your Committee throughout hearings per population on bills ports of Committee 409,326. bearing Congress upon A mere in- the State of introduced figures pub- spection subject, reports of these will demon- been that there has no dis- strate on this sub- lications authorities against City- figures analyzed York crimination New These be- thus proposed frequently employ cause bill. “under-represented” words in relation to figures still Refining 18th, the size of the dis- York New further, is obvious tricts, namely, 431,330, 445,175 439,- its County (Manhattan) with 456, respectively, “over-represented” one-tenth approximately 1,698,281 has respect (382,- to the 17th district 16,782,304 population of State the total 320). Testing by taking these numbers equal pro- hence, and, have on should Legislative “maximum Committee’s 41 Con- portion one-tenth basis average variation fifteen from cent being has gressional This seats. population per largest district”, the allotted four seats. County district, 18th, is less necessity question the do not average than above the and the 9% Congressional for the reduction smallest, 17th, less than below 7% to 41 nor the State tricts in average. Only Kings County out- of the 37 the boundaries range found the widest of almost 15% County. Inspection York side of New above and below the mean.2 & variation districts discloses of these 37 During every the trial the court made City York within New in effort to ascertain plain- the real basis of 469,908 District 12th in the of from tiffs’ claim of constitutional violation. (Brooklyn) 349,850 in down to Plaintiffs they stated that intended to 348,940 Brooklyn) in (also District prove Legislature enacting in (Bronx); and in the the 24th District upstate (in Chapter 980 “segre- of the Laws of 1961 City) York relation gated the voters [in vir- Manhattan] 460,409 in the and rural areas place tue of origin”. race and They comprising the counties 30th District limit, however, their “race” to “non- Saratoga, Washington, Warren, Ful- of ton, white” “place origin” and their group Hamilton, part Essex, Clinton Selecting Puerto Rico. certain catch 353,183 in the 31st Rensselaer to phrases from one opin- of the Gomillion Lawrence, consisting St. District (Mr. ions Whittaker), they argue Justice Oswego Lewis, Jefferson, Franklin Legislature that the intentionally fenced merger example An a counties. Negro citizens out of the 17th District found rural and suburban interests is and fenced 18th, them into the 19th and in the 25th District where Putnam’s They Districts. ask this court to merged (rural) population (31,722) is find an Legislative unconstitutional in- (largely with sub- Westchester’s solely tent analysis the basis of their 406,687. urban) Separating the New content of these dis- City districts from the 22 in the tricts. State, 7,781,984persons rest if the City equally (and in New York divided were At the outset this court courts amongst districts, generally) there should be should be ever watchful that 409,578 being persons in each pawn district. The warring it is not made remaining 9,000,000persons political divided into suspicion factions.3 More than average provide 22 409,109per should possibility plead- created ings. district. The intervenors assert that Rutledge pointed judgment 2. concerning As Mr. out in Justice his exercise their how concurring opinion Colegrove Green, in this, consistency best to attain in full 566, 1198, 1209, 328 U.S. with the Constitution.” L.Ed. 1443: not, Colegrove Green, “There and could not be ex- cept abstractly, right a of absolute S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. Mr. Justice equality voting. in At best there could Frankfurter wrote: rough approximation. “Nothing a And is clearer than that this con- obviously troversy there is considerable bring latitude concerns matters powers the' bodies vested with those courts into immediate and active rela- Assembly in to Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs then show six district leaders are the percentages Manhattan the four districts the embraced within Districts 3.1%, Congressional 18th of non-whites and Puerto Rican are Districts 58.2%, 17th, Congressman Powell in the from which 19.8% 18.9% 18th, Districts, respective- present representative and others 19th and 20th is the ly. any figures plaintiffs From “public affected ask this office”would be these judgment plaintiffs. court a to conclude matter of law that in favor of Legislature drew proof Upon was offered the trial no intentionally deprive trict lines so as to finding plain- justify a which would non-whites Puerto of their Ricans “class”; represented fact, a tiffs rights. constitutional “Constitutional dispels opposing claim intervenors’ rights” to do still unan- what remains plaintiffs nor Neither such conclusion. apparently swered. a want truly for, speak can the intervenors represent higher percentage of non-whites and of, the wishes some neigh- 17th. Their Ricans persons Each indi- in their districts. bors, intervenors, proclaim equal with vidual, however, the benefits entitled to change vehemence that a would be equal protection and due of constitutional rights enjoy violative of their judicial support process. But to receive redistricting They claim, it now is. causes, they respective must for their effect, take a substantial num- preference more than mere to be show ber and Puerto non-whites Ricans and other district and associated for some place them within the confines of voting purposes persons of other Congressional (namely, different origin. or other of races countries 17th) depor- the anbe Acadia-like theories of unconstitution- designed Plaintiffs’ dissipate tation to and thus ality pin First, down. difficult to They make ineffectual their votes. assert they disparity refer between to size opportunity now have an to attempted districts and have the their persons repre- elect own of their race to hypothetical equalize own districts to al- legisla- them and sent their interests to exactly population the most They each. respond tive bodies. Plaintiffs that this equality disclaim exact as a basis importance. is of no unconstitutionality probably of because Finally considering and before the history of the of 2 and U.S.C. 2a be- § legal problems, any, if there be a brief Broom, of cause Wood v. 287 U.S. 53 County’s congres- review of New York (1932). 77 S.Ct. L.Ed. 131 sional districts should A made. 50- Although plaintiffs obliquely year period disavow has been selected. 1911 percentage theory, racial parts their statis- 9 there were full districts and of argument supports They tical it. County show 4 other districts in New York out 1,698,281 of Manhattan’s inhabi- of a total of 43 in the State. In 1917 1,058,589 the 1960 apportionment tants census 1911 lists the changing was amended (apparently County as white all races and 10 full districts 62.3% places origin) 639,692 parts and of 3 as others. Based on the 37.7% origin”. census, “non-white and Rican 1910 the variation in the Con- Why discriminates, plain- gressional the census so Districts Nos. 11-22 was slight, ranging except 204,498 were 219,772. tiffs unable to answer from as applying witness said that the census After the 1920 census limits the 1922 probably place origin Act, larger, races non-whites and the variation was party up tions contests. From contest be dressed de- abstract * * * phrases termination such this issues Court of the law. has traditionally very held aloof. is hostile “To sustain this action would cut system judi- deep very being Congress. a democratic to involve the into the ciary politics people. ought political And Courts not to enter this pernicious judicial is not less if such thicket.” essentially political intervention in an

466 (from process shifts, deprivation due amount to a low population due to being equal protection. 191,645 situa- figures) There the available aggravated developed particularly disparity tion because

high 317,803. was Wider being 90,- Legislature census, no had taken Tennessee low the 1930 after comply high 381,212. action to After with the state’s own 671 comparable hypothetical A allotted Constitution. State was and the 1940 census given County state of exist had the New was facts would districts, York New Legislature other, York taken no action since of one full high County range being 1901 when York held a population New from percentage where- 315,639. the State’s 37 seats after the Not .until today County’s County allotted census was receiving 6 districts, But one-tenth factual State's. self-contained State, situation of non-action does not exist. smallest of 43 for the out Legislature revising 316,- taken action having has a census trict present after each largest 336,441. census and at 434 and the Representative is, ratio- of voter to through- many one This suit is but Legislative said, Committee has advantage seeking country to take out the equality population” “substantial Supreme Baker decision Court’s basis. Carr, S.Ct. U.S. application has no case The Gomillion (1962).4 inject a racial To L.Ed.2d 663 Negro There some resi- whatsoever. angle plaintiffs added Gomillion Tuskegee city were who dents Lightfoot, 339, 81 S.Ct. city privileges all resi- entitled (1960), the school 5 L.Ed.2d 110 segregation deliberately including voting were dents support their thesis. cases voting by a disenfranchised However, most drastic Procrustean drawing city wholly of new irrational shape conform will not treatment slightly which did not even boundaries patterns present of those case to the excluding purpose the obvious veil simply Carr deci- cases. Baker v. Negroes city as voters. jurisdiction court that a federal sion has remedy equally a wide deal with The school irrelevant. cases voting representation disparity in as to found as a fact If be it is to subject upon appor County, Pa., 13, Dauphin the 4. Of the cases June 1962 my (court have come to atten to determine whether tionment tion, refused comported existing apportionment have held the state four statutes provisions apportionment constitutional: state and federal constitutions until A., S.D.N.Y., act). Simon, legislature Inc. v. M. had time W. 1962, C. Court); (Statutory F.Supp. apportionment 368 208 others'have held Still equal Zimmerman, W.D.Wisc., provisions protec under the v. invalid Wisconsin 1962, Court) F.Supp. (Statutory 183 of the Fourteenth Amend 209 clause tion Special Master); Gray, (report F.Supp. v. 203 Caesar Sanders v. 158 ment: 241; April 28, 1962) Williams, (1962), Idaho, (Statutory (N.D.Ga. 371 P.2d Representa Fortson, Maryland Court); F.Supp. for Fair Toombs v. 205 Comm. (Md.1962), 1962) Tawes, May 25, (Statutory (N.D.Ga. v. A.2d tion 184 715 248 Court); Burkhart, (upper house). W.D.Okla., Moss v. (Statutory Court); apportionment 1962, F.Supp. found the 885 207 Others F.Supp. Carr, (M.D. in conflict with consti v. 206 341 statutes the state Baker Frink, 22, 1962) (Statutory ; F.Supp. Court) v. 205 245 Tenn. June tution: Sims April 14, Representation (M.D.Ala. 1962) (Statutory Maryland Comm. Fair Equity 13920, Court); Shanahan, 90,476, Tawes, No. Harris v. No. Ct. Anne v. Cir. County, May Md., 24, County, Kan., May Shawnee Dist. Ct. Arundel , house); Hare, 1962; Mich., 31, (lower rel. v. ex Lein Scholle State v. Sathre 350; (N.D.1962); 1962, 116 Fortner v. Lein v. N.W.2d Bar 113 N.W.2d F.Supp. nett, County, Miss., Sathre, (D.N.D. May 31, No. Hinds Ch. Rousseau, Court); 1962; Sweeney Note, R.I., 1962) (Statutory v. v. Mikell 6 . . 29 ., 183 A.2d A.2d 817 Vt Lawrence, Equity See also Start No. 1962 Commonwealth No. C. P. provisions of New ment of the State and will there there the 17th Congressman rational, arbitrary, York are are of throughout years not substantially origin, speak historical contain no properly who can alone geographical permit repre- discrimination, an Manhattan electorate change might majority electoral alter consideration sentative further same However, ma- and are under given not unconstitutional both to these cases. vigorously relevant United jor political parties decisions of Supreme Certainly Congressman finding States federal Court. pute a a lone congressional vitally redistricting not from New 17th controls York’s legislative Congress, affect no action all influences actions plaintiffs in attacked any this action have not matter might such incumbent how able creating New York’s method its own be. Legislature. any proof Nor has been figures plain- maps and various From any way offered to indicate in find constitutional court to tiffs ask Legislature congressional in its various Actually plaintiffs have deprivations. boundary date enactments from voting their own shown even not conformity has redrawn district lines way. changed Prior bewill status popu with non-white and Rican County’s New York the reduction lation shifts. four, Congressional there were seats through districts, 21st. the 16th six presents example case This of an' Legislature appar- eliminating two, the attempt apply completely theories of existing framework. ently used (Baker Carr, unrelated situations substantially enlarged on the cases). Gomillion and the school That slight- cutting old 18th and into north appears surpris- the effort forced merged ly the balance the south ing. Legislature If the created had two The old with the 16th. old 18th Congressional districts in Manhattan made 19th, into two and 21st were consisting 100,000 each persons, one extending northerly from the wholly almost of Race A and along the side of west of Manhattan assigning of race B and balance southerly city end of the around County to two districts of through up side. the lower east island Thus, each, question of discrimination general pattern was might raised; well be but did not despite preserved the elimina- somewhat so act. districts. tion of two Manhattan, result citizen No Legis legislative redistricting, proof tendered that been No has drawing right duly deprived the district lines in in of his to vote for the lature previous years party was in motivated or of candidates of nominated by any considerations which and in area in which he fluenced his choice during unconstitutional areas sub Wherever have to be have become resides. years. wholly, districts, sequent Plaintiffs failed will there be voters divided into allegation “repeated may prefer support their of to vote in districts other who to legislative energetic deprivation efforts” to seek but such their own than deprivation. any that efforts were constitutional In correction or ing unavail anot large city appor unconstitutional is not unusual- find of that because to challenge Any place persons that of the same race or correction of tionment. tendency together origin could not be made have a settle if needed beeausé legislature composition of the Often State various areas. this under- in by practice squarely them met the recent enables decision in obtain standable S.D.N.Y., legislative al., representation et al. bodies Inc. v. Simon et which WMCA F.Supp. 368, denied would be 1962, wherein to them. after a otherwise 208 geographic three-Judge boundaries court' found re include a with Where trial higher apportionment there will be a spect Senate such concentrations Assembly’'districts apportion percentage race in one district that "the one basis, districts based lines were than in create constituted on others. To a racial upon equal proportions plaintiffs the various fact that had an undimin right inhabiting metropolitan gerryman areas races ished to vote in such indulge practices dered would indeed be districts would be irrelevant. verging upon by unconstitutional. constitutional vice would use be legislature appear Equally impermissible unconstitutional stand only ard, suggestion plaintiffs’ plaintiffs and the be that harm to that need an election be shown is Manhattan should there that such a standard large Congressional Repre- Lightfoot, at used. of its four Gomillion v. system 339, 125, U.S. sentatives and that S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d 110 Any (1960), Carr, Baker v. used elsewhere in the State. 369 U.S. legislation definitely (1962), pro tend to S.Ct. 7 L.Ed.2d 663 abridge voting status, support racially vide if not the view that gerrymandered voting rights, Man- actual residents of Fif districts violate the Amendment, provides teenth hattan. that: right “The of citizens the United having upon the facts failed States to vote shall not be denied or the law establish violation * * * abridged race, on account of rights a result of constitutional color, previous condition of servitude.” Legislature the action New York Baker, Douglas Mr. Justice referred enacting Chapter the Laws to the Gomillion ease as an Instance complaint must be dismissed. enjoins gerry “where a federal court No costs. mandering lines,” on based racial' further stated that: Judge. FEINBERG, District “Race, color, previous condition Judge I concur in the result reached impermissible of servitude is an MOORE I feel because standard reason the Fifteenth proving have not met their burden of Amendment, and that alone is suffi 17th, boundaries the new explain Light cient to Gomillion v. Congressional 18th, 19th, and 20th Dis- foot, 5 L.Ed.2d along lines, tricts were drawn racial 110 .”2 they allege. opinion I differ from the Judge Moore, however, in two ma- emphasis It is true that in the Go- jor respects. opinion deprivation million on Judge opinion Moore’s right sev- pre-existing municipal to a vote. places implies necessary eral it is analysis However, of that case indicates Negroes to show not Tuskegee were free congressional boundaries of the districts separate to establish their own munici- pality merely by filing were drawn racial lines but signed also that petition there other dilution or diminu- was some persons.3 racially The view that right plaintiffs’ tion of the I vote. drawn se would also violate disagree implication. Equal If Protection Clause of proved plaintiffs had support district Fourteenth Amendment finds in 5, 727, circumstances, at however, 1. 369 U.S. 250 82 S.Ct. at n. Under those Mr. thought L.Ed.2d 663. 7 Justice Whittaker there would be Equal violation Protection Clause 244, 724, at 82 2. 369 U.S. S.Ct. at 7 L. of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ibid. concurring opin But 663. see the Ed.2d Lucas, Dragon Mr. ion of Justice Whittaker in Gomill 3. See In The Thicket: A Lightfoot, where he stated that ion there was no Perusal v. Gomillion Su preme 194, of the Fifteenth (1961), violation Amendment Court Review 210-11 redistricting long suggests racial as the com where author also addi enjoys plaining right viewing voter the same tional reasons the case as barring any segregation as all others in the vote same district. of voters even Lightfoot, 349, 339, voting v. 364 rights. Gomillion U.S. absent a technical loss of 125, 131, (1960). 81 5 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 110

469 segregation.6 respect re- Supreme bad” With decisions curiam in districting, is found the answer following Board v. Brown Court phrase 686, 98 L. Mr. Justice famous 483, Harlan’s Educ., 74 S.Ct. 347 U.S. outlawed (1954). the Constitution These cases4 color-blind.7 Ed. 873 segregation public parks, beach in racial me 2. one The case a closer golf es, without buses, courses Judge opinion than the Moore resulting dis harm discussion of ,did\ indicate is for him. facilities. those in use of crimination might jus- introduce evidence which assuming posed can be The issue tify an inference that racial considera- n statestatute indicated face on its which reapportion- tions motivated the 1961 Negro one in vote all voters congressional in ment Man-1 another, in and all voters white - However, inferences, hattan. as/ dis persons in each with the number below, equally more set forth are jusj equal. approximately I have little trict bur-1- tifiable. a difficult Plaintiffs have held would be a statute doubt that such attacking den to the constitu- meet unconstitutional, under the but whether tionality Ba- See this state statute. Amendment, or Fifteenth Fourteenth or both,5 266, Carr, supra, at 82 ker v. 369 S.Ct. now, in view decided need not be (Stewart, J., 737, S.Ct. at 7 L.Ed.2d 663 prove case. plaintiffs’ failure to Simon, concurring); W.M.C.A., v. Inc. (S.D.N.Y.1962). F.Supp. 368, 208 373 redis- contend The intervenors analysis, Upon bur- I not think that do suggested by along tricting lines den has been met. effect, would, jeopardize plaintiffs legisla- Ri- redistricting, non-whites In “control” the 1961 congressional compress district. one York Coun- of at least ture had ty six New cans advantage alleged done This—the loss of This was districts into four. logical claim appears of voters the class fashion. what to be a Congressional District, con- represent to the Thus, as irrelevant in the 17th —is particularly need to show as the some upon stitutional issue legislature inherent focused, than that harm other drawing started with ba- on a racial district lines before District as was outlines argument under man- assumes lines in a rational sis. The moved seg- “good” expanded there can be consider- The area was the Constitution ner. ably against regation along racial lines east the East River and to on the enjoined); Improvement City employer’s cf. customers 4. Park New Orleans Mitchell, Corp. Detiege, 54, Progress v. 182 358 U.S. 79 S.Ct. Dev. F. Ass’n v. Gayle part, (1958); Supp. (N.D.Ill.1960), 99, rev’d in v. Brow 681 L.Ed.2d 46 3 1961) (real 145, (7 der, 903, estate L. 222 Cir. 77 1 286 F.2d 352 U.S. S.Ct. Atlanta, developer’s imposition (1956); of a “benevolent” v. Ed.2d 114 Holmes 141, Bittker, 879, quota); L.Ed. The Case Check 76 S.Ct. 100 350 U.S. Experiment Mayor (1955); Dawson, An v. er-Board Ordinance: Relations, (1962), L.J. 100 L.Ed. 774 71 Yale 76 S.Ct. Race U.S. (1955); v. Louisville The collected therein. Muir Park and authorities Ass’n, 971, 74 atrical 347 U.S. S.Ct. Plessy Ferguson, Fay In dissent (1954). his See v. New 98 L.Ed. York, 1138, 1146, 537, 559, 16 261, 292-293, S.Ct. U.S. 332 U.S. 67 S.Ct. (1896), Mr. Justice Har- (1947). 41 L.Ed. 256 also 91 L.Ed. 2043 See “There is no caste here. stated: Texas, 475, 478, lan Hernandez v. U.S. color-blind, and nei- Constitution (1954); Our 98 L.Ed. 866 Nixon S.Ct. among nor tolerates classes knows Herndon, 536, 541, ther respect rights, civil all citizens. (1927). 446, 71 L.Ed. 759 equal before the law. The citizens rely 5. here on both Amend- Plaintiffs peer pow- the most the of humblest is ments. regards man, man as The law erful. surroundings Court, Hughes Superior no account of his 6. takes See rights guar- (1950) color when his civil as of his 94 L.Ed. 985 by supreme (picketing compel hiring the law of the land are of anteed to the em origin ployees proportion in racial involved.” to the contiguous reasonably population equal fashion. made in even and in the north straighter congressional apparent- in the other This in resulted ly congressional logical County, than York any lines would more area to be added ap- jigsaw substantially percentage before, prior of of and most the increase the pearance east- on the the of the lines non-whites and Ricans in 17th District Puerto Thus, therefore, ex- boundary argue, eliminated.8 District. ern was changes effected actual the 17th amination of the District’s sup- redistricting by deliberately kept unreasonably not does low the although port plaintiffs’ dis- However, racial of avoid this result. the contention course, proper, appre- crimination. It is of the District is 17th changes ciably neighboring rather primarily on these smaller dis- focus than its changes tricts, only bounda- on than the the western it is still below about legislated average in state, ries the 17th District for or less than 7 changes, per cent, Judge points 1941 and As as out. Moore 1951. plaintiffs increasing popula- in themselves concede true pattern average post-trial “a memorandum that tion 17th District to the fencing discriminatory 17th by moving up out lines down district emerge began really contiguous probably District in fashion any redistricting.”9 higher percentage with the 1951 result in a non- event, to the western side as in that Dis- whites Ricans and Puerto generally (which re- However, District trict. a variation districting change), record average not, did not from does cent zigzags now my justify finding mind, if the were indicates that racial eliminated, non-whites the number of crimination. brought into the Puerto Ricans dissenting opinion de- notes that boundary by lines this correction might fendants and the intervenors equal approximately number proved ques- lines district exclud- Ricans non-whites political part tion drawn of a were “as asserting change.10 by I am not ed major political compromise between the drawn, lines, not prior once could parties” proof but this was that no legis- discriminatory because become Although submitted. intervenors deliberately reasons, lature, racial raised as a the contention that defense However, years. to act over the failed the boundaries of the 17th District were proof far falls adduced this case the “along political partisan lines formed establishing that contention. short lines,” no rather than racial there is evi- inquiry Therefore, principal area bearing dence the record this is- changes brought about must be Therefore, it, I see none of sue.11 these, redistrieting, and as to the 1961 opinions ques- in this deal with the case than lines seem more rational the district drawing of tion of whether the before. political would be lines on basis con- stitutionally permissible.12 principal plaintiffs’ contentions ofOne if the District were to be political considerations, .Apart dissenting expanded opinion direction so as to be then, concludes District'apparently objected had 49 lines 8. The 17th the relevance of redistricting procedure prior to the 81 sub- information and to the sequent being to it. obtained. it was There- ' considering fore, the Court plaintiffs, p. Brief 19. 9. Post-trial the record before it information Record, p. 134. furnished defendants. which was hearings, supplemental brief, the close 11. After the Court 12. In a con parties, by requested stipulation, Bickel, it would not be. See tend that Durability Colegrove pop- additional information as to furnish Green , voting ulation, (1962). figures for L.J. enrollment 72 Yale designated Howe.ve.r, certain areas. enough keep it within only from 17th District that “the inference” available figures approximation a fair average, statewide percentages non-whites of the of on might stronger by plain- be upon a inference and Puerto Ricans relied legislative population draw drawn was deliber- is of intent tiffs one ately adding kept na- small because district lines the basis race per- only origin. agree could centage. non-white I that this increase the tional not do addition, if increase only On In inference. available aggravating give by figures rise had been achieved case, in this record jigsaw more, or nature boundaries equally, or inference another drawing serpentine manner,13 them in persuasive. since a is that inference That might presented. It in a be Ricans different case and Puerto non-whites jigsawing that there was some concentrated Manhattan live in certain true many top 4), the new (see at and the bottom of plaintiffs’ areas Exhibit very slight. congressional District, possible but this was combinations of Town, innocently example, Stuyvesant For which lines, district no matter how very rationally drawn, has a small non-white and Puerto result would also population, figures. Rican to the Dis- comparable is made added This immediately plaintiffs’ bottom, clear, at example, trict adjacent but the west, one for suggested appre- an area to the methods three drawing congressional alternative ciably higher percentage lines non-whites district proposed Ricans, plaintiffs’ The addi- was not. Under Manhattan. Stuyvesant District, B, percentage and tion of Town of non-whites Plan however, give be would does not rise one district Puerto Ricans in cent, per inference of racial 9.5 in another discrimination. while though gives inference, equally also Even rise it would 59.1 cent. greatly, persuasive, percentages economic differ the social and these background Stuyve- avail- racial be “the residents discrimination figures logically ? unit sant Town made a able inference” from these suggested a-community Clearly, plaintiffs have had interest with the since plan, not inference would residents 17th District.14 an only short, upon record, all, based the entire I much be the available at less proved plaintiffs not do feel that have inference. available their case. asks, properly also “What dissent Judge (dissent- MURPHY, District prove?” more Some’an- need ing). might upon a failure to build swers be: logical manner, majority rational, opinions both find prior in a lines greater disparity, proof, e., failed in their have a i. proved prima boundary zigzagging. they, a If not case increase fade shown, deprivation example, fail- of unconstitutional plaintiffs had rights. to increase ure U.S, 339, among Lightfoot, particular groups, local communi- 13. Cf. Gomillion practical (1960). political cations, 5 L.Ed.2d effects 81 S.Ct. lobby city the; like the institutions 186, 323, machine, Carr, ancient and ties traditions 14. See Baker usage, respect proven 691, 767, (1962) L.E.d.2d incum- settled long experience and senior Frankfurter stated: bents of sta- Mr. Justice where character, tus, mechanics, “Apportionment, mathematical its is a censuses subject extraordinary complexity, compiling data, and a in- relevant host volving the- after fundamental others.” —even language concerning true that is to be issues what While it came oretical legisla- dissenting opinion, representative represented does from the majority fought compromised appear have been out or Court ture analysis demog- disagree geography, with this —considerations process. raphy, convenience, apportionment economic electoral divergencies social cohesions disagree ordinarily plaintiffs have from en- I courts should refrain and find that that, tering (Her- “political prima, into and burden thickets” borne their facie suggest- beyond competence Texas, nandez it is our supervise remedy ap- 866) ab- unlawful because of the a L.Ed. and any Inequities proof portionment. in- in Dis- sence defendants or But see tricting Congress: judgment and Baker v. Carr tervenors entitled to are Colegrove declaring challenged Chap- portion Green, Yale L.J. (1962.) ter 980 unconstitutional violation equal protection of the four- clause proof The submitted' uncontradicted my premise Let teenth amendment. me however, plaintiffs, a vis- establishes reasons with few concessions. a figure picture ual of the end results of redistricting of Manhattan recent I a total ab- concede that there was (New County) York follows: Isle proof any specific in- direct sence of 1,698,- population of Manhattan has a Legislature in tent the New people and four con- is entitled to district; drawing I the lines of gressmen. figures I960' The census popu- disparity concede that alone in the only groups two- divided ethnic into compared an- lation of one district and Puerto classes—white non-white and general city or to a state aver- counted, Rican. These classes been age dispositive; I is not concede that according 1,058,589 or and to the census jigsaw, itself a district’s lines whether 639,622 or white 37.7%. 62.3% straight, serpentine or otherwise would and Puerto are non-white Rican. controlling; I concede that some disproportion by Chapter numbers ethnic The district lines fixed adjoining groups question^ districts would not created the four districts in following enough; make-up: I concede that federal with the Non-White Origin Total Puerto Rican White District; Population Population Population of District

District % 382,320 362,668 19,652 17th 94.9%' 5.1%- 431,330 59,216 372,114 18th 13.7% 86.3%- 445,175 318,223 126,952 19th 71.5%' 28.5%- 439,456 318,482 120,974 20th 72.5% 27.5%. 1,698,281 1,058,589 37.7%; Total 62.3% figure following per- picture table shows the of the 17th District persons persons encompass, shows that the lines as drawn cent of non-white origin population a 5.1,% in each con- Rican white and non- Puerto 94.9% gressional white and the total relation to Rican. further population 382,320 peo- persons shows it has a in the entire of such number ple, county: or between less than- 15.4% 12% adjoining any of the districts. The 18thi of Non-White % that, encompasses District and Puerto Rican non-white and Puerto Rican- 86.3% County white. Its 13.7% 431,330 people more than the- 12% 17th 3.1%' average. above the 17th state 5% 18th 58.2%- 19.8% my judgment It is avail- 18.9%' inference from able the above uncontra- figure picture dicted se establishes 100.0% legislative prima intent plaintiffs’ of a so proof case dilute re- as to 0% facie congressional quire prove lines in so, district to draw them to If more? did they proof on the basis do it Districts when the 17th 18th uncontradicted origin. itme also (cid:127)of To showed race national that the 17th District had foursquare people adjoining Frank Mr. Justice less fits with than the 15.4% Light District; 19th in Gomillion v. furter’s statement less than 14% -foot, 341, 125, 339, My 5 and 364 U.S. S.Ct. less than the 18th. broth- 12% 110, question say disagree. was ers act in “No” L.Ed.2d that the and I ordinary geographical redistrict not ing might very It that well be the defend- familiar measure even within the ants and intervenors could have offered Although gerrymandering. -abuses of proof to counteract the inference of ra- statement refer -Justice Frankfurter’s segregation plaintiffs proof cial that im- holding red there was court’s that plies they but did not—and furthermore -a violation of fifteenth amendment they They might chose not to do so. equally apposite this statement is to the proved have all of the factors enumerat- (cid:127)equal protection clause of the fourteenth by éd Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Baker amendment under Board of Brown v. Carr, 186, 323, 691, Education, U.S. S.Ct. go 7 L.Ed.2d that into the concurring opinion L.Ed. 873. Cf. the complicated political potpourri ap- of Mr. Justice Gomillion at Whittaker portionment. might They proved have 131, 5 81 S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d 110. The part that the lines were drawn as of a is, Gomillion, conclusion resistible, ir here political compromise major between the practical tantamount for all political parties to insulate certain sec- purposes, to a mathematical demonstra purposes”—but tions “traditional legislation solely tion that the con simple they answer that did not. segregating white, cerned with plaintiffs more prove? What need by (cid:127)colored and Puerto Rican voters fenc Surely argued they be cannot that ing colored and Rican Puerto citizens out prove must some oral or written state- (cid:127)of the 17th District and into a district legislature ment made either in 18th). (the of their own report the form of a committee or from We assume had the district lines manager bill, or statements (cid:127)of the 17th District been drawn so legislators from the themselves. as to all exclude non-white and Puerto undisputed hearings public that no were Ricans, white, or the 18th to exclude all only report had on bill and that the my agree plaintiffs brothers would report filed was the interim Legislative of the Joint prima had established a case of facie Reapportion- Committee segregation. se Lightfoot, Gomillion v. by Judge ment referred to MOORE. supra. acknowledged,however, It is that The bill recommended was submitted to plaintiffs’ uncontradicted evidence dem legislature 9, 1961, on November County, onstrates that New York an is passed 10, 1961, on November having 639,692 land non-white and signed by day. was N.Y.Sess.Laws, the Governor that Puerto or pop Ricans 37.7 of the total % Extraordinary 2d Sess. ulation, was redistricted into four con 1961, 980, c. 110-112. §§ gressional district, districts with one Judge FEINBERG and I com- having only 17th, non-whites and 5.1% only pany quantum plaintiffs’ on the only Puerto Ricans and the 18th with agrees proof. He white. 13.7% required prove any diminution or question posed voting rights. then They is—Does the dilution of their congressional prima prove fact that the lines case once fade legislature decreed the state district lines show were consti- encompass agrees 17th District tuted on racial basis but he 5.1% Judge non-white Rican and MOORE distinguished enough—but white proved opinion from not neither 13.7% enough average. of below the state Would or much more tells us how 8% enough, 9%, 10%, is a What etc.? what. really approximation? fair Isn’t Judge states FEINBERG weigh you question of do fact? How inquiry must principal area of the questions offers when defendant re- brought changes the 1961 about proof? tips no I that submit the scale premise he districting. his this as With City plaintiffs. toward the of New ap- has points 17th District out that 7,781,984 people York with has been di- population proximately less 7% legislature vided into 19 average for the state than the average per population tricts an with finding justify disproportion a does 409,578. It district is true that the agree. I discrimination. of racial average City population York al- average equals population say is, a or a fact most is factor I All it others, throughout why all of the district with state. But considered legislature comparisons was must make keeping that the we with en- in mind dividing City four districts tire 19 into districts in the an island New York non- or the island contained entire 41 and such districts in state? 37.7% dealing Puerto Ricans. We are with Manhattan Island white practical purposes which for all unique metropolitan ais suggests picture the word He that also many area with figures discrimination infer not well-known river to river cross streets along non- that lines but rather racial longi- and famous north and south or live in certain Puerto Ricans white See, example, tudinal streets. lines so district areas concentrated encompassing plaintiffs they proof in which dem- would neces- areas these hypothetical onstrated three divisions high sarily very percentage of include a how the island could have been divided is Ricans. This non-white logical into four on a districts and ra- plaintiffs. my point exactly and also the using tional basis the natural boundaries pattern lines the 18th District or well-known streets and I avenues. any they drawn so that were shows that agree hypothetical that such districts encompassing areas these lines are not but conclusive do have some high necessarily very include a probative I help- value and think are and Puerto percentage of non-whites pointing up segrega- ful in the obvious high might And, add, very a Ricans. we effected, legislature (c) tion that percentage of in the 17th. whites boundary An zigzagging. increase in my question more How much In answer to increase and is the how —What says zigzags prove counted, an- ? He some number of need measured or might be, you compare zigzagging but and do be—not should swers lines (a) prior legislature might build Failure to lines drawn be: logical you rational, your- manner. This in 1951 or lines in a do confine prior presumes lines that the were with- self Manhattan Island or New York infirmity. any any City any constitutional In any out or district in four event, one build how does state. (b) six A on foundations districts? agree plaintiff, or I no for that sug- disparity. greater population Island, person on Manhattan matter gested a if had shown right deprived of a been has lost to increase failure Congress his or that vote will enough vote for keep a it without 17th District parallel average but Gomil- approximation of not be counted the state fair opinion.) might (concurring stronger clear. lion inference be drawn a glaring deliberately kept a exclusion of Ne- was There it municipal adding groes district. Here could in- small because from a exclusion “silk is a subtle non-white and Puerto Rican crease the (as stocking the 17th is so fre- district” percentage. The 17th 7% to) jamming quently and a referred into the Ricans colored and Puerto segregation appeals kind intervenors.

to the amend- the fifteenth We are told sophisticated as well nullifies ment my simple-minded discrimination. legislature judgment has the New equal pro- attempted, in violation fourteenth amend- clause of the tection ment, sophisticated discrim- and subtle give judg- Accordingly, I would ination. challenged ment for act is unconstitutional. Satz, Jr., Atty., by M. U. David S. Butler, Atty.,

James D. Asst. U. S. plaintiff. Newark, J., for N. Goldberg, Newark, J.,

Walter N. Realty defendants Transfer Co. Lathrope Voorspuy. Hendrik and Schenck, King, Esquires, Smith & Starrett, Morristown, Clifford W. N. J., Ridge for defendant Oak Lake Park Realty Corp. America, UNITED STATES of AUGELLI, Judge. Plaintiff, brought by This action taking United States for the of land un- LAND, OF

355.70 ACRES MORE OR der U.S.C.A. 258a. The § Declaration LESS, Situate IN the TOWNSHIPS OF Taking May 14, 1958, was filed on JEFFERSON, AND ROCKAWAY following day, $26,675.00 on the was de- MORRIS, OF COUNTY STATE OF Registry posited in the Court as JERSEY, Halstead, NEW Caleb O. just compensation al., estimated et Defendants. for the July 16, 1958, On land taken. an addi- Civ. A. No. 546-58. $1,500.00 deposited tional States District United Court Registry dwelling property. for a on the Jersey. D. New Taking Declaration described Dec. lands taken metes bounds description perimeter entire acre area.

355.70 There was no alloca- boundary tion of the lines of the in- taking within area, owners dividual there an nor was indication of of land taken amount from each owner. following parties to be claimed portions owners various of the con- Realty land: Transfer Com- demned ; Lathrope pany Voorspuy; Hendrik Ridge Realty Corpora- Park Lake Oak Lidgerwood ; Estates, Inc.; tion and col- lectively, Kenneth and Geraldine Schach- ter, Fisehell, Norman L. and Ethel

Case Details

Case Name: Wright v. Rockefeller

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

Date Published: Nov 26, 1962

Citation: 211 F. Supp. 460

Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.