Butcher v. Bloom
Opinions
Opinion
Our previous opinion in this case1 sets forth the nature, issues, and background of the litigation and obviates the need for extended discussion in the present sequel. That opinion embodied the conclusion of this Court that certain acts of the • Legislature,2 providing for the apportionment3 of both houses of the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, resulted in ah impairment of the right to. vote in conflict with the Federal Constitution and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.4 We therefore held such acts invalid and void.5
Having so concluded, this Court was thus confronted with the task of fashioning appropriate relief. We [308] determined, however, that the imminence of the 1964 general election required the utilization of the apportionment plans contained in those acts, notwithstanding their invalidity, in order to prevent serious disruption of election processes and essential governmental functions. Moreover, we considered it appropriate that the Legislature, the organ of government with the primary responsibility for the task of reapportionment,6 be afforded an additional opportunity to enact a constitutional reapportionment plan.
Accordingly, while retaining jurisdiction, we deferred further judicial action in order to afford an opportunity .for appropriate and timely legislation on the part of the General Assembly.7 To assist in that task, we set forth guidelines for constitutional reapportionment as mandated by the Federal Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.8
Thus, our previous opinion invited and urged legislative action. And while we acknowledged the practical difficulties to be confronted, we expressed the hope that further judicial intervention would be rendered unnecessary by prompt constitutional legislation. At the same time, we sought to make clear that our reluctance to intrude into an area of primarily legislative re[309] sponsibility would not deter this Court from proceeding with the task of reapportionment in the event that the Legislature failed to do so. We concluded, therefore, that should the Legislature fail to enact a constitutionally valid reapportionment “not later than September 1, 1965,” this Court would take appropriate steps to ensure that the individual voters of this Commonwealth are afforded their constitutional right to cast an equally weighted vote.9
The deadline set forth in our earlier opinion passed without enactment of the required legislation. Accordingly, pursuant to our retained jurisdiction, this Court issued an order on September 29, 1965 notifying the parties of our intention to proceed with the task of fashioning such affirmative relief as would be necessary to ensure a constitutionally valid legislative apportionment for the forthcoming primary and general elections.
In order to secure assistance in fashioning such relief, our order permitted the parties and all others in interest to submit proposals for the statewide reapportionment of both houses of the General Assembly. Thereafter, numerous and widely divergent plans were filed with this Court. Each proposal was carefully considered and evaluated in the course of our deliberation.
In the formulation of the reapportionment plans herein adopted, we have been guided by the dictates of the Federal Constitution and the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Our primary concern has been to provide for substantial equality of population among legislative districts.. At the same time, we have sought to maintain the integrity of political subdivisions and to create compact districts of contiguous territory, insofar as these goals [310] could'be realized under the circumstances of the population distribution Of this Commonwealth. We believe such plans to be constitutionally valid and sound. •
Accordingly, pursuant to' the mandate and principles set forth in our prior opinion, we hereby order that the attached Appendix A shall be the reapportionment plan for the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of - the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the forthcoming 1966 primary and general elections. We further order-that the attached Appendix B shall be the districting plan for the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the forthcoming 1966 primary and - general elections. The- districting plan contained in Appendix B is subject. to thé following qualification and direction: the 50 senatorial’ districts therein contained are hereby divided. into two classes, those districts designated by even numbers shall constitute one class and those districts designated by odd numbers' shall constitute the other class. All 50 senatorial seats shall be filled in the forthcoming election,10 but senators representing odd numbered senatorial’ districts shall be elected to serve a; two year term and' senators representing even numbered -senatorial districts shall be elected to serve for a constitutional four year term.11
It is further ordered that the plans set forth in Appendices A and'B and hereby adopted shall remain in force and effect until constitutionally altered.12
[311] APPENDIX A
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Footnotes
216 A.2d 457 (Butcher v. Bloom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.