W.M.C.A., Inc. v. Simon

208 F. Supp. 368, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5327
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 16, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 208 F. Supp. 368 (W.M.C.A., Inc. v. Simon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
W.M.C.A., Inc. v. Simon, 208 F. Supp. 368, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5327 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

Opinions

LEVET, District Judge.

This is an action for a judgment declaring that the constitutional and statutory provisions of the State of New York governing the apportionment of Senate and Assembly districts are unconstitutional.

The previous history of the proceedings in this Court appears in W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1961, 196 F.Supp. 758, and the action here is the same as the one before this three-judge court in 202 F.Supp. 741 (1962). The original decision was a dismissal of the complaint.

Following the decision in Baker v. Carr, 1962, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, the Supreme Court, on June 11, 1962, vacated the judgment entered upon the opinion by us contained in 202 F.Supp. 741 and remanded the case “for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr.” 370 U.S. 190 at 191, 82 S.Ct. 1234, at 1236, 8 L.Ed.2d 430.

Accordingly, after due notice to the parties, a hearing was held by this Court [370]*370on August 1, 1962 at which time the proofs offered by the parties (in so far as we believed to have been relevant) were submitted and extensive oral argument on the merits of the claim was heard and briefs of the parties submitted. Now after deliberation and reconsideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra, we find and conclude as follows:

FACTS

1. The New York State constitutional and statutory provisions are set forth as exhibits in the complaint. (Constitution Art. 3, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5. Statutes —State Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 57, §§ 120-123.)

2. There is no failure by the legislature to comply with the State Constitution and only the so-called malapportionment of Senatorial and Assembly districts is here involved. (Minutes of Nov. 15, 1961, pp. 32-33.)

3. No purposeful discrimination against any race, religion, creed or sex or national origin is claimed by plaintiffs. (Minutes, August 1, 1962, pp. 31, 32.) The whole objection of plaintiffs is that there is not fair representation of urban areas. (Id. at p. 32.)

The plaintiffs’ claim is that the Constitution of the State of New York is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution. (Id. at pp. 127, 128.)

As to the City of New York, its counsel conceded that there was no allegation of discrimination “other than a discrimination arising from financial matters either in the collection of taxes or the distribution of taxes or funds collected by the State and distributed throughout the whole State to the various communities and cities.” (Id. at p. 42.)

4. We take judicial notice of the following:

The revised Constitution of 1894 containing the present apportionment provisions was submitted to the voters on November 6, 1894 and was approved by a vote of 410,697 to 327,402; the legislative apportionment was approved by a vote of 404,335 to 350,625. See Legislative Manual, New York, 1961-1962, page 289. On November 7, 1916, on a vote to revise the Constitution and amend the same, the vote was 506,563 for and 658,269 against. Id. at p. 292. On November 5, 1957, the vote for a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same was 1,242,568 for and 1,368,063 against. Id. at p. 309.

5. We also, on a similar basis, note:

New York City with a population of 7,781,984 or 46.0% of the state’s population of 16,782,304, has 65 assemblymen or 43.3% of the total assembly, and 25 senators or 43.1% of the total number of senators, while the counties' other than those in New York City, with 54.0% of the population, have 56.7% of the total assembly and 56.9% of the senate seats.

6. The courts of the State of New York have approved the present methods of apportionment. Matter of Sherrill v. O’Brien, 1907, 188 N.Y. 185, 81 N.E. 124; Matter of Fay, 1943, 291 N.Y. 198, 52 N.E .2d 97; See also Matter of Dowling, 1915, 219 N.Y. 44, 113 N.E. 545.

7. A summary of the provisions of the State Constitution and statutes relative to Senatorial apportionment is substantially as follows:

“The Senate districts are created primarily on the basis of citizen population. A ‘ratio’ is determined by dividing the citizen population of the State by 50 (the number of Senators); Senate districts are then formed by combining or dividing counties so that each district contains approximately this number (the ‘ratio’) of citizens. The Constitution provides that each district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact a form as practicable. There are four further provisos: When any county is entitled to more than three Senators, the Senate is enlarged from its minimum size (50) by the number of these additional Senators; no county can have four or [371]*371more Senators unless it has a full population ratio for each; no county shall have more than one third of all the Senators; and no two counties that are adjoining or separated by one public waterway shall have more than half of all the Senators. (The last two of these provisos are inoperative, since no counties are entitled to that number of Senators.)” (Opening Memorandum For Defendants Simon and Lefkowitz Before The Statutory Court On Remand From the Supreme Court of the United States, pp. 4-5.)

8. A summary of the provisions of the State Constitution and statutes relative to Assembly apportionment is substantially as follows:

“The total number of Assemblymen is fixed at 150, with every county except Hamilton (which shares one Assemblyman with Fulton County) entitled to one Assemblyman. Sixty-one seats are thus accounted for. The remaining 89 seats, however, are apportioned in this manner: The citizen population of the State is divided by the total number of Assemblymen, and the quotient thus achieved becomes the ‘ratio.’ Every county whose citizen population equals 1% times the ‘ratio’ is entitled to a second Assemblyman. The rest of the seats are then apportioned among those counties with citizen populations greater than twice the ‘ratio.’ Seats apportioned on remainders are apportioned in order of highest remainders, with the proviso that no county shall have more Assemblymen than a county with a larger citizen population.” (Opening Memorandum For Defendants Simon and Lefkowitz Before the Statutory Court On Remand From the Supreme Court of the United States, p. 4.)

While more than one Senate or Assembly district can be contained within the whole of a single county, and while a given Senate district may consist of more than one county, no county border line can be broken in the formation of either type of district.

9. Certain statistical data were submitted by the parties in a Stipulation filed on August 1, 1962 and, by order of the court made a part of the record; Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 through 7 also contain statistical tables. A copy of Tables IV (Appendix A) and VIII (Appendix B) from the said stipulation are appended hereto. These projected statistics of an apportionment based on the 1960 census appear to state the basis of plaintiffs’ claims.

10. In the appendices hereto we attach (a) a map of the present Assembly Apportionment, the original of which is contained between pp.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ince v. Rockefeller
290 F. Supp. 878 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Bianchi v. Griffing
271 F. Supp. 497 (E.D. New York, 1967)
In re Orans
24 A.D.2d 217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Silver v. Jordan
241 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. California, 1965)
In re Orans
206 N.E.2d 854 (New York Court of Appeals, 1965)
In re Orans
45 Misc. 2d 616 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo
238 F. Supp. 916 (S.D. New York, 1965)
Reynolds v. Sims
377 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Butterworth v. Dempsey
229 F. Supp. 754 (D. Connecticut, 1964)
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo
377 U.S. 633 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado
377 U.S. 713 (Supreme Court, 1964)
In Re Apportionment of State Legislature—1964
126 N.W.2d 731 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1964)
Baker v. Carr
222 F. Supp. 684 (M.D. Tennessee, 1963)
Yorty v. Anderson
384 P.2d 417 (California Supreme Court, 1963)
Lisco v. Love
219 F. Supp. 922 (D. Colorado, 1963)
Nolan v. Rhodes
218 F. Supp. 953 (S.D. Ohio, 1963)
Davis v. Synhorst
217 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Iowa, 1963)
Jackman v. Bodine
188 A.2d 642 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1963)
Mann v. Davis
213 F. Supp. 577 (E.D. Virginia, 1962)
Wright v. Rockefeller
211 F. Supp. 460 (S.D. New York, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 F. Supp. 368, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wmca-inc-v-simon-nysd-1962.