KOENIG ET AL.
v.
FLYNN, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New York voters sought mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to certify congressional representatives elected under a concurrent resolution redefining congressional districts, but the Secretary of State argued the concurrent resolution was invalid because it had not been submitted to the Governor for approval as required by state law. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the creation of congressional districts is an exercise of lawmaking power subject to state constitutional requirements, including gubernatorial approval, and thus the concurrent resolution could not serve as a valid basis for certifying the new districts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners, ‘citizens and voters’ of-the State, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State of New York, in issuing certificates for the election of representatives in Congress, to certify that they are to be elected in the congressional districts defined in the concurrent resolution of the Senate and .Assembly of the State, adopted April 10, 1931. The.'Secretary of State, invoking the provisions of Article I, section 4, of the Constitution of the United States, and those of the Act of Congress of August 8, 1911, c. 5, 37 Stat. 13, and also the requirements of the constitution of the State in relation to the enactment of laws, alleged that the concurrent resolution in question was ineffective, as it had not been submitted to the Governor for approval and had not been approved by him. The Court of Appeals of the State, construing the Federal constitutional provision as contemplating the exercise of the lawmaking power, sustained the respondent’s defense and affirmed the decision of the lower courts refusing the writ. 258 N. Y. 292; 179 N. E. 705. This Court granted a writ of certiorari.
The State of New York, under the reapportionment pursuant to the Act of Congress of June 18, 1929, c. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 26, is entitled to forty-five representatives in Congress in place of forty-three, the number allotted under the previous apportionment. The Court of Appeals decided that, in the absence of a new districting statute dividing the State into forty-five congressional districts, forty-three representatives are to be elected in the existing districts as .defined by the state law, and the two additional representatives by the State at large.
For the reasons stated in the opinion in Smiley v. Holm, decided this day, ante, p. 355, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr.- Justice Cakdozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec'y of State Cord Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…sentatives to be elected at large and the other representatives to be elected from the districts as prescribed by existing law “[u]ntil a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment”); see Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 379 (1932) (affirming judgment determining that, “in the absence of a new districting statute dividing the state into” the newly apportioned number of districts, New York would elect its previously apportioned representatives “in the existing distr…
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…oyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135. In such instances there is no conflict between state policy and the exercise of federal judicial [*285] power. This distinction explains the decisions in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355; Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U. S. 375; and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U. S. 380, in which the Court released state constitutional provisions prescribing local lawmaking procedures from misconceived restriction of superior federal requirements. Adjudication of the federal claim involved in t…1 / 3
-
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1964)…led to these conclusions in Baker are equally persuasive here. Indeed, as one of the grounds there relied on to support our holding that state apportionment controversies are justiciable we said: . . Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U. S. 375, and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U. S. 380, concerned the choice of Representatives in the Federal Congress. Smiley, Koenig and Carroll settled the issue in favor of justiciability of questions of congressional redistricting. The Court followed these pre…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence