Butterworth v. Dempsey
| Decision Date | 22 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9571. |
| Citation | 237 F. Supp. 302 |
| Parties | Oliver BUTTERWORTH et al., Plaintiffs, v. John DEMPSEY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Donald F. Keefe, of Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, New Haven, Conn. (William L. F. Felstiner and Milton P. DeVane, of Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffs.
Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen. of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
H. Meade Alcorn, Jr., of Alcorn, Bakewell & Smith, Hartford, Conn., and Prof. James Wm. Moore, New Haven, Conn. (Norman K. Parsells, Bridgeport, Conn., Ralph M. Shulansky, of Shulansky & Cohn, Hartford, Conn., and Ralph G. Elliot, of Alcorn, Bakewell & Smith, Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for intervenors A. Searle Pinney, J. Tyler Patterson, Jr., Frederick Pope, Jr., and Peter P. Mariani.
Leo Parskey, Hartford, Conn., for intervenor John M. Bailey.
John D. Fassett, of Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for attempted intervenors Town of Franklin, Town of Salem, Anthony Carboni and Elmer P. Chappell.
Before J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge, and ANDERSON* and TIMBERS†, District Judges.
Memorandum Re Relief Pursuant to Mandate of Supreme Court October 29, 1964.
Order Joining Leaders of Senate and House of Representatives as Parties Defendant October 29, 1964.
Memorandum on Motion for Approval of Action of General Assembly January 22, 1965.
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Judgment heretofore entered are amended to read as follows:
(5) That defendants John Dempsey, Ella T. Grasso, Donald J. Irwin and Raymond S. Thatcher, their privies and their successors in office, are enjoined from doing any act or taking any steps in furtherance of nominating or holding elections of senators or representatives to the Senate or House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut, and said defendants are further enjoined from certifying or in any other manner declaring that the results of any such nominations or elections are valid or that the legislature of the State of Connecticut is properly or legally constituted, unless all senators and representatives are nominated and elected to the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut pursuant to a redistricting of the Senate and a reapportionment of the House to be effected promptly by the General Assembly so that the voting rights of plaintiffs in the choice of members of both houses as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution will not be impaired; such redistricting of the Senate and reapportionment of the House by the General Assembly to be done in such manner as to achieve substantially equal weighting of the votes of all voters in the choice of members of both houses and in accordance with law.
(6) That execution of the injunction in the foregoing paragraph (5) of this Judgment is stayed so long as the following schedule is adhered to:
(7) The jurisdiction of this action is retained for the entry of such further orders by this Court, including ordering of elections at large, as may be necessary and proper.
SEPTEMBER 24, 1964 MEMORANDUM RE FURTHER AMENDMENT TO JUDGMENT
On June 22, 1964, in Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this Court entered March 26, 1964 (Butterworth v. Dempsey, 229 F.Supp. 754, 790-792 (D.Conn.1964)), which declared unconstitutional the present districting of the Connecticut Senate and the present apportionment of the Connecticut House of Representatives; enjoined any further elections to the Senate or House except elections from the state at large or pursuant to a constitutional redistricting of the Senate and reapportionment of the House; and retained jurisdiction for the entry of further orders "including any order required in the absence of prompt action by the General Assembly" in redistricting the Senate and reapportioning the House following Supreme Court review of this Court's judgment.
In affirming the judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court "for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds." Pinney v. Butterworth, supra. In Reynolds v. Sims, supra at 585, the Supreme Court, on the subject of relief to be granted by the district courts in state legislative apportionment cases, stated, "It is enough to say now that, once a State's legislative apportionment scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan."
Upon receipt of the mandate of the Supreme Court and following conferences with counsel, this Court on July 29, 1964, with the consent of all parties to this action, entered an order amending its judgment of March 26, 1964 so as to stay execution of the injunctive provisions thereof provided a special session of the General Assembly would convene the week of August 3, 1964 and by September 10, 1964 would enact (i) constitutional temporary reapportionment legislation for the election of the 1965 General Assembly to convene in January 1965, and (ii) an appropriate statute for the convening by November 5, 1964 of a Constitutional Convention to formulate state constitutional provisions for districting the Senate, apportioning the House, revising decennially the structure of the General Assembly and amending the state constitution by a procedure not in contravention of the United States Constitution.
A special session of the General Assembly did convene August 3, 1964. It adjourned September 10, 1964, however, without enacting any of the legislation referred to above.
The Court was informed on September 11, 1964 at a conference with counsel for all parties, attended by some of the parties as well, that substantial progress was made at the special session in attempting to enact the legislation contemplated by this Court's order of July 29, 1964: agreement was reached on the terms of a Constitutional Convention statute and near-agreement was reached on temporary reapportionment legislation for the election of the 1965 General Assembly.1
The stumbling block, so the Court was informed, to the enactment of legislation in either area was the date upon which election of the 1965 General Assembly should be held. Certain parties, relying on Article Third, Section 7, of the Connecticut Constitution, insisted such election could be held only on November 3, 1964. Other parties, relying on provisions of the Connecticut statutes governing elections and primaries, insisted such statutory provisions could not be complied with if the election were held November 3, 1964.
We recognize the desirability of complying with existing state constitutional and statutory provisions with respect to the time and methods of holding elections. Whatever may have been the feasibility of complying with such provisions when our order of July 29, 1964 was entered or while the General Assembly was in special session, we are now confronted with a situation where relief ordered by this Court on March 26, 1964 and affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 22, 1964 is operating to deprive the people of Connecticut of a constitutionally valid legislature because of disagreement among the parties as to a date for electing the 1965 General Assembly.
It is fundamental that state limitations — whether constitutional, statutory or decisional—cannot bar or delay relief required by the federal constitution. This Court, in Valenti v. Dempsey, 211 F.Supp. 911, 913 (D.Conn.1962), held that "* * * under Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed.2d 663 * * * plaintiff is pressing a federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feehan v. Marcone
...v. Butterworth , 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1964), and the decision that followed on remand, Butterworth v. Dempsey , 237 F.Supp. 302 (D. Conn. 1964), for the proposition that, "under Baker v. Carr , [supra, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691], a claim made under the federal cons......
-
Lewis v. Kugler
...Turner v. Goolsby, 255 F.Supp. 724 (S.D.Ga.1965) (three-judge court) (public school system placed in receivership); Butterworth v. Dempsey, 237 F. Supp. 302 (D.Conn.1965); United States v. Manning, 215 F.Supp. 272, 292-294 (W.D.La.1963). See generally Brown v. City of Meridian, 356 F.2d 602......
-
Kilgarlin v. Martin
...census. The Board did not assemble in 1961 because the Legislature enacted an apportionment statute. 78 See, e. g., Butterworth v. Dempsey, 237 F.Supp. 302 (D.Conn.1965). 79 There may be a slight difference, perhaps mostly in emphasis, perhaps nothing more than semantics, with respect to on......
-
Terrazas v. Ramirez
...sub nom. Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1964), on remand or subsequent appeal, Butterworth v. Dempsey, 237 F.Supp. 302 (D.Conn.1965). But there is far more authority for allowing elections to go forward, even on unconstitutional plans, than there is for......