SCRANTON, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
v.
DREW ET AL.

U.S. | 1964-11-16
No. 201
379 U.S. 40 Supreme Court of the United States (1964) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 13 L. Ed. 2d 107 · 85 S. Ct. 207 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 188 · SCDB 1964-003
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

Pennsylvania's 1964 legislative apportionment acts for both its House and Senate were declared invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment by a federal District Court, and the Supreme Court vacated and remanded that judgment following the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. Sims, which established that legislative districts must be apportioned on a "one person, one vote" basis. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had separately struck down the same apportionment laws as unconstitutional but retained jurisdiction to compel the legislature to enact a constitutionally valid reapportionment plan.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the District Court appealed from was entered on April 9, 1964, 229 F. Supp. 310 (D.

C. M.

D. Pa.).

The District Court held invalid under the Four- ' teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Representative Apportionment Act of January 9, 1964, P. L. 1419, 25 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2221-2222 (1963 Supp., including Acts of the 1963 Extra Session), the Pennsylvania Senatorial Apportionment Act of January 9, 1964, P. L. 1432, 25 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. §§2217-2220 (1963 Supp., including Acts of the 1963 Extra Session), and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s legislative apportionment provisions, Art. II, §§16, 17. The court restrained appellants from conducting any future elections under the apportionment acts, but stayed its order pending the disposition of an appeal to this Court. Thereafter on June 15, 1964, this Court decided Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, and companion cases: WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633; Maryland Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656; Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S.

713.

On September 29, 1964, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down a decision construing the legislative apportionment provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and holding these provisions constitutional as construed. The court, however, declared invalid, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. Constitution, the Pennsylvania legislative apportionment laws at issue in this appeal. Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A. 2d 556. The Pennsylvania court retained jurisdiction of the case, stating:

“We have indicated that it is our expectation that the Legislature will proceed in timely fashion to enact reapportionment laws which conform to constitutional requirements. We must recognize, however, that if the General Assembly fails to act in a timely fashion, we shall be obliged to take necessary affirmative action to insure that the 1966 election of Pennsylvania legislators will be conducted pursuant to a constitutionally valid plan. Proper regard for our responsibility compels us to retain jurisdiction of this matter pending legislative action.

“Should the Legislature fail to enact a constitutionally valid plan of reapportionment as soon as practical, but not later than September 1, 1-965, we shall take such action as may be appropriate in light of the then existing situation.

“Jurisdiction retained in accordance with this opinion.” Id., at 468-469, 203 A. 2d, at 573. The judgment of the District Court is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of the decisions supervening since the entry of the judgment of the District Court.

Vacated and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • In re Senate Joint Resolution OF Legis. Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012)
    …ized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such eases has been specifically encouraged. State of Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 676 [84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595] (1964); City of Scranton v. Drew, 379 U.S. 40 [85 S.Ct. 207, 13 L.Ed.2d 107] (1964), citing Butcher v. Bloom [415 Pa. 438], 203 A. 2d 556 (1964); Jackman v. Bodine [43 N.J. 453], 205 A. 2d 713, 724 (1964). See also Kidd v. McCanless [200 Tenn. 273], 292 S.W. 2d 40 (1956), and discussion thereof…
  • McLeod v. Gen. Elec. Co., 385 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1967)
    …irection to enter a new judgment setting aside the order of the District Court and remanding to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of the supervening event. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263; Scranton v. Drew, 379 U. S. 40. It is so ordered.…
  • Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1965)
    …ment or to formulate a valid redistricting plan has not only been recognized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has been specifically encouraged. Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656, 676 (1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 U. S. 40 (1964), citing Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A. 2d 556 (1964); Jackman v. Bodine, 43 N. J. 453, 473, 205 A. 2d 713, 724 (1964). See also Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 273, 292 S. W. 2d 40 (1956), and discussion thereof in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw