Scranton v. Drew
| Citation | 13 L.Ed.2d 107,379 U.S. 40,85 S.Ct. 207 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 201,201 |
| Parties | William W. SCRANTON et al. v. Ira Walton DREW et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Walter E. Alessandroni, Atty. Gen. of Pennsylvania, and Edward Friedman and Alan Miles Ruben, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellants.
Marvin Comisky, Thomas D. McBride, Goncer M. Krestal and Marshall J. Seidman, for appellees.
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 Fourteenth 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 (P.S.). 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, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and companion cases: WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632. 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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ince v. Rockefeller
...specifically recognized but had also been "specifically encouraged" (381 U.S. at 409, 85 S.Ct. 1525), and cited Scranton v. Drew, 379 U.S. 40, 85 S.Ct. 207, 13 L.Ed.2d 107 (1964), which was the Pennsylvania reapportionment litigation. It is also a purpose of abstention to avoid premature co......
-
Graves v. Barnes
...in the larger counties." Drew v. Scranton, N.D.Pa.1964, 229 F.Supp. 310, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 1964, 379 U.S. 40, 85 S.Ct. 207, 13 L.Ed. 2d 107. The district court particularly condemned the inconsistent and irrational method used in distributing single and multi-member dis......
-
Harris v. Anderson
...U.S. 563, 84 S.Ct. 1917, 12 L.Ed.2d 1036; Pinney v. Butter-worth, 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037; Scranton v. Drew, 379 U.S. 40, 85 S.Ct. 207, 13 L.Ed.2d 107, and Hill v. Davis, 378 U.S. 565, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037, establishing federal constitutional requisites for st......
-
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176
...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 , 203 A.2d 556 (1964); Jackman v. Bodine , 205 A.2d 713, 724 (1964). See also Kidd v. Mc......