Jordan v. Silver
| Decision Date | 01 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 935,935 |
| Citation | 85 S.Ct. 1572,381 U.S. 415,14 L.Ed.2d 689 |
| Parties | Frank M. JORDAN, Secretary of State of California, et al. v. Phill SILVER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Herman F. Selvin, for appellants.
Phill Silver, appellee, pro se.
The motion of the appellant the Senate of the Legislature of California to take judicial notice of official judicial records is denied. The motion to strike the motion to dismiss or affirm is also denied. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, whom Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice STEWART join, concurring.
The California Constitution reserves to the people of the State of initiative power to propose constitutional amendments by filing a petition with the Secretary of State.1 If the petition is signed by 8% of the persons who voted in the preceding gubernational election, the proposed amendment will be submitted to the people at the next general election, and only a bare majority vote of the people is required in order to pass the amendment.
Prior to 1926 the California Constitution, Art. IV, § 6, provided that both houses of the legislature would be apportioned on the basis of population.2 In 1926 an initiative measure, known as Proposition 28, was submitted to the voters which deleted the requirement that the Senate be apportioned on a strict population basis, leaving the method of apportioning the Assembly unaffected.3 The statements accompanying the measure, which were distributed to all voters, described the proposition as an attempt to provide a federal-type plan for California, similar to the apportionment of the United States Congress, and summarized the arguments pro and con the proposal.4 Proposition 28 was approved by a popular vote of 437,003 to 363,208 in the November 1926 election, and the following year the legislature adopted apportionment statutes to effectuate the constitutional amendment. This legislation was submitted to the people as required by state law, and was approved by them in the 1928 election.5 The amendment provided that the Senate would be composed of 40 members, to be elected from senatorial districts; the districts would be based on population, but no county could contain more than one district, and no district could consist of more than three counties.6
Since the adoption of these changes, various initiative measures have been submitted to the voters on more than one occasion in an attempt to change this apportionment system for the Senate. In 1948 such a proposition was defeated by a vote of 2,250,937 to 1,069,899.7 In 1960 such a proposition was defeated by a vote of 3,408,090 to 1,876,185.8 And in 1962 another such proposition was defeated by a vote of 2,495,440 to 2,181,758.9
The Court today summarily affirms the decree of the District Court holding this senatorial apportionment, consistently approved by a majority of the people of California voting in general elections, to be invalid under the decisions of this Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and companion cases. Were I able to detect in any of those cases the slightest basis for optimism that the Court might consider last Term's reapportionment pronouncements to leave room for the people of a State to choose for themselves the kind of legislative structure they wish to have—at least when the democratic processes employed are as straightforward and flexible as those of California—I would vote to 'Note' and hear this case. Finding, however, that the judgment of the District Court is squarely required by Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632,10 I reluctantly acquiesce in the Court's summary affirmance.11
2 'For the purpose of choosing members of the legislature, the state shall be divided into forty senatorial and eighty assembly districts, as nearly equal in population as may be, and composed of contiguous territory, to be called senatorial and assembly districts.' Calif.Const. of 1879, Art. IV, § 6, in Calif.Laws 1925, p. xi.
3 * * *' Calif.Laws 1927, p. lxxxv.
Another measure, Proposition 20, was also submitted to the voters in the 1926 election, which would have preserved the apportionment of both houses on a strict population basis. This proposition was defeated by a vote of 492,923 to 319,456. Record 37.
4 'Argument in Favor of Legislative Reapportionment Initiative Measure.
"FEDERAL PLANS.'
'This proposed constitutional amendment will take the place of section 6, article 4, of the constitution of California, which now provides that the state shall be divided into forty senatorial districts and eighty assembly districts 'as nearly equal in population as may be, and composed of contiguous terreitory.'
'The growth of city population in California, and particularly the unprecedented development of the two great urban regions of the state, will have the effect, if representation is reapportioned according to present law, of consolidating political power in the inhabitants of 3 per cent of the area of the state to the prejudice of the representative
rights of the balance of the population who inhabit 97 per cent of the area of the state. The state legislature, foreseeing disadvantages to the general interests of the state, has repeatedly declined, since the publication of the last federal census, to reapportion representation on the basis of the existing law.
'The present amendment would alter the constitution so as to enable the legislature to find a solution to the difficulty that will protect the right of the great bulk of the state to fair representation.
'The plan is called the 'Federal Plan' because its provisions resemble those of the federal constitution with respect to representation in the United States congress. It rests upon a principle widely recognized in American government and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serrano v. Priest
... ... Reference is made to certain legislative reapportionment cases, notably Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 270, 46 Cal.Prtr. 308, 405 P.2d 132, and to the fact that the Governor and the members of the Legislature were there made ... (See and cf. 26 Silver v. Jordan (S.D.Cal.1964) 241 F.Supp. 576, 579, affirmed (1965) 381 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1572, 14 L.Ed.2d 689; Sixty-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens ... ...
-
United States v. United States Department of Commerce, Civ. A. No. 98-0456. Three Judge Court (RCL, DHG, RMU)
...matter how the census is conducted. However, the Court's reliance on Silver v. Jordan, 241 F. Supp. 576, 579 (S.D. Cal. 1964), aff'd, 381 U.S. 415 (1965) in reaching its Beens conclusion demonstrates that a legislature's claim of an institutional interest in its composition is not limited t......
-
U.S. House of Represent. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
...census is conducted. However, the Court's reliance on Silver v. Jordan, 241 F.Supp. 576, 579 (S.D.Cal. 1964), aff'd, 381 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1572, 14 L.Ed.2d 689 (1965) in reaching its Beens conclusion demonstrates that a legislature's claim of an institutional interest in its composition is......
-
Silver v. Jordan
...of counsel, for defendants. Before BARNES, Circuit Judge, and CROCKER and CARR, District Judges. Judgment Affirmed June 1, 1965. See 85 S.Ct. 1572. PER Since the historic pronouncement by the Supreme Court of the United States in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (dec......
-
Chapter §9.06 Graham Factor (4): Secondary Considerations
...one. Troy Co. v. Products Research Co., 339 F.2d 364, 367, 144 USPQ 51, 53 (9th Cir.1964), cert. dismissed, 381 U.S. 930, 85 S.Ct. 1762, 14 L.Ed.2d 689 (1965). This would be particularly true where the copyist had itself attempted for a substantial length of time to design a similar device,......