scheme might not offend the basic stand-
ard of equality, but legislators have numer-
ous important functions that have nothing
directly to do with voting, such as partici-
pating in the work of legislative commit-
tees and party caucuses, debating on the
floor, discussing measures with other legis-
lators and executive agencies and the like.
The assemblyman who in voting repre-
sents a one-sixth district can theoretically
give each constituent six times as much
representation in these other respects as
the assemblyman who represents a full
district.
This disparity of representation persists,
even if the state is right in arguing that
the assemblyman, with only one-sixth of
the vote, will carry only one-sixth as much
political weight when he engages in these
other activities. Moreover, fractional dis-
tricts are enjoyed mainly by the sparsely
populated regions of the state.
Of the 47 per cent who cast fractional
votes under Plan D, 37 are from counties
too thinly inhabited to have any additional
representation in the assembly. Of the 39
assemblymen who would cast fractional
votes under Plan C, 34 are from counties
too thinly inhabited to have any additional
representatives.
None of the assemblymen with fractional
votes under either plan are from New York
City or Nassau County.
In view of the Supreme Court's concern
for New York's traditional bias against
voters living in the state's more populous
counties, citing the case which had gone
to the Supreme Court from New York, this
imbalance makes fractional voting par-
ticularly vulnerable.
He goes on with other arguments and
then sums it up this way: "Accordingly, we
hold that Plans D and C violate the 14th
Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, and
therefore do not comply with the July 27
order of this Court."
That is a square holding and that was
firmly affirmed by the Supreme Court. In
the affirmance, which is in 382 US, it was
affirmed pro curia with Mr. Justice Harlan
writing a concurring opinion in which he
noted that so far as he was concerned, it
did not involve determination of a federal
question, because Plan A, which was ap-
proved by the District Court, had been
based on a matter of state law.
In other words, they found that that
complied with the state constitution, and
therefore Mr. Justice Harlan felt that the |
federal question was not reached in their
decision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
you have one half minute.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I am
sorry.
There are a few other cases in which it
has been hinted that this matter is one that
might be effective, if the proposition were
merely that as a temporary measure. To
avoid a first shot in reapportionment, it
might be allowed to stand, but no court
in this country has sustained it as a perma-
nent part of the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: 1 join with our
distinguished Chief Judge in his analysis.
However, there have been a few more
cases brought up which indicate that the
matter is still unsettled.
On the particular case to which he re-
ferred, there was a further proceeding in
the Supreme Court the following year at
which it was agreed by all parties that the
question was moot, so not only was the
federal question never reached, the case
was dismissed for reason of its being moot.
There was a recent case last year which
arose in Virginia Beach. In this case it was
a question of whether, although all the
councilmen were elected city-wide, they
were required to reside in the districts. The
only applicable point here is the Supreme
Court's reason for upholding this. They
indicated that the value to the legislative
body or the expertise of the people from
various sections would offset any unfavor-
able influence which might come from their
residing in only one section.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I wish you would record my time as
one-half for the opposition and one-half for
the affirmative because I would like the
House to know what the actual impact of
the proposal is on the counties and what
counties are involved. I feel that they ought
to have this before they vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Assuming |
