Miller v. Schaffer

• Decision Date: 17 October 1972
• Citation: 164 Conn. 8,320 A.2d 1
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: John H. MILLER et al. v. Gloria SCHAFFER, Secretary of the State of Connecticut, et al.

Page 1

320 A.2d 1

164 Conn. 8

John H. MILLER et al. v. Gloria SCHAFFER, Secretary of the State of Connecticut, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and MacDONALD, JJ.

(In the above-entitled case, the Supreme Court on October 17, 1972, issued the following ruling from the Bench)

On August 23, 1972, the Superior Court rendered judgment in the present case making certain corrections of clerical errors in the redistricting plan submitted by the reapportionment board, ordered that the plan as corrected be implemented and that the election of members of the General Assembly prescribed by article third, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut be held pursuant to that plan in accordance with a detailed schedule. From that judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

On September 5, 1972, this court determined that it was in the public interest that these appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court be heard as soon as possible and motions for an expedited appeal were granted. The appeals were heard on October 13, 1972, the earliest possible date on which counsel were ready to proceed. In view of the present uncedrtainty concerning the exercise of the constitutional right of the electors of the state to elect members of the General Assembly at a general election to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in this year, it is in the public interest that the decision reached by this court be announced immediately.

It is clear that the Superior Court did not attempt to determine the federal constitutional issues now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. Its judgment (1) corrected the clerical errors in the plan; (2) determined that a failure to elect the state legislative body would cause irreparable harm to the people of the state of Connecticut and violate their rights under the Connecticut constitution; (3) declared that the state board plan is valid and effective on an interim basis for the election mandated by the constitution for this fall; and (4) adopted a calendar setting up a schedule of dates to set in motion the state election process.

It is the opinion of this court that the conclusions of the trial court were legally correct and cannot be disturbed. A written opinion will be filed in due course.

This court will retain jurisdiction of this case.

Robert Satter and James A. Wade, Hartford, for appelllants (defendant Jeanne Averna and others).

Kenneth J. Laska, Plainville, for appellant defendant city of Bristol and others).

Francis J. McCarthy, Hartford, with whom were Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Richard A. Stewart, Hartford, and, on the brief, Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Washington, D.C., of the Washington, D.C., bar, for appellees (plaintiffs).

RYAN, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment in an action brought by the plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment and an order 'in the nature' of mandamus. The plaintiffs sue as resident citizens and electors of the state of Connecticut and as representatives of all citizens and electors similarly situated. The named defendant, the secretary of the state of Connecticut, is sued in her official capacity with respect to the conduct of elections to the General Assembly and the certification thereof, and as the representative of all state and municipal officials charged with duties in the conduct of such elections. The defendants Nathan G. Agostinelli and Robert I. Berdon, comptroller and treasurer, respectively of the state of Connecticut, are engaged with the named defendant in canvassing the votes in elections to the General Assembly. The defendants the town clerk, registrars of voters, selectmen and councilmen of the town of Wethersfield, in Hartford County, are sued in their several capacities because the subject matter of the complaint in this action concerns their functions in the composition of electoral districts for the conduct of primaries and elections for members of the General Assembly, and are sued additionally as representatives of all municipal election officials charged with duties in the composition of electoral districts for and the conduct of such elections, including all town clerks, registrars of voters, selectmen of municipalities of the state, and legislative bodies as defined by § 1-1 of the General Statutes.

Article third, § 6, of the Connecticut constitution provides for decennial reapportionments of the General Assembly. Section 6, subsection (a) of article third requires that the 'general assembly shall decennially at its next regular session following the completion of the census of the United States, upon roll call, by a yea vote of at least two-thirds of the membership of each house, enact such plan of districting as is necessary in accordance with the provisions of this article.' When the 1971 session of the General Assembly failed to enact such a plan of districting by April 1, 1971, the governor was required under the provisions of article third, § 6, subsection (b) to appoint 'a commission consisting of the eight members designated by the president pro tempore of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the minority leader of the senate and the minority leader of the house of representatives, each of whom shall designate two members of the commission.' This was done and, in accordance with article third, § 6, subsection (c) the commission proceeded to consider the alteration of the districts of the General Assembly. On the failure of the commission to submit a plan of districting by July 1, 1971, the speaker of the house of representatives and the minority leader of the house of representatives pursuant to the provisions of article third, § 6, subsection (d) each designated a judge of the Superior Court as a member of the board, who then designated an elector of the state as the third member. The third member was a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. On September 30, 1971, the board filed with the secretary of the state a plan of apportionment of the General Assembly adopted by a majority of the board which was published by her on December 21 1971. Conn.Const., art. 3, § 6(e). It is this plan which is the subject of the present action.

This action was brought November 12, 1971, seeking a declaratory judgment and an order: construing and reforming the plan in accordance with the intent of the board; declaring the plan as so construed to be valid and effective for elections for members of the General Assembly to be held November 7, 1972; and, by way of ancillary relief, requiring the defendant the secretary of the state and all state and municipal officials charged with duties in the conduct of primary and general elections for members of the General Assembly to conduct such primaries and elections in accordance with that plan as construed and reformed.

After this action was commenced in the Superior Court, another action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dated November 18, 1971, seeking a declaratory judgment of the invalidity of the plan on federal and state constitutional grounds. On December 10, 1971, an application for intervention as a defendant was filed by J. Brian Gaffney, which was granted by the District Court on December 27, 1971. Gaffney filed a defense, urging that the United States District Court abstain from proceeding because of the pending state court action. On March 30, 1972, a three-judge federal court filed an opinion refusing abstention and declaring the plan invalid for violation of the federal constitutional principle of 'one-man, one vote.' By its judgment filed April 6, 1972, the United States District Court enjoined state election officials from holding elections for the General Assembly until approval by that court of another plan of reapportionment. A special master was appointed for the purpose and filed an additional plan with the court on May 26, 1972. Cummings v. Meskill, 341 F.Supp. 139 (D.Conn.).

On April 13, 1972, the defendant intervenor in the federal case appealed from that judgment to the United States Supreme Court; Gaffney v. Cummings et al. 412 U.S. 735, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298; and subsequent thereto filed with the Supreme Court a combined jurisdictional statement and brief together with a motion for expedited consideration of that appeal. On May 22, 1972, the United States Supreme Court denied the motion for expedited consideration with three justices inviting the appellant to file an appropriate motion for a stay of execution. Gaffney thereupon moved the United States District Court to stay further proceedings, and on May 24, 1972, moved that court for a stay of judgment, which motion was denied on May 26, 1972. Thereafter, Gaffney addressed his motion to the justice of the Supreme Court for the Second Circuit who referred the matter to the full court. On June 12, 1972, the Supreme Court granted the appellant's motion for a stay. Gaffney v. Cummings, 407 U.S. 902, 92 S.Ct. 2441, 32 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972).

On June 15, 1972, Gaffney moved the District Court to perfect the stay order of the United States Supreme Court and in that motion he requested that the board plan be put into effect for the election to be held November 7, 1972. This motion was denied on June 19, 1972. The same motion was then addressed to Justice Marshall, Supreme Court Justice for the Second Circuit, who denied it without comment on July 7, 1972. The motion to perfect the stay order was then addressed to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who denied it on July 19, 1972. Federal proceedings to implement the stay order of the United States Supreme Court by ordering the board plan into interim effect for the November, 1972, legislative elections, pending disposition of the appeal in that court, concluded July 19, 1972, and the plaintiffs instituted mandamus proceedings in the Superior Court in aid of...