Valenti v. Dempsey
| Decision Date | 20 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9544. |
| Citation | 211 F. Supp. 911 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | James J. VALENTI, Plaintiff, v. John DEMPSEY, Governor of the State of Connecticut, Ella T. Grasso, Secretary of the State of Connecticut, Albert L. Coles, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Donald J. Irwin, Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, and Raymond S. Thatcher, Comptroller of the State of Connecticut, Defendants. |
Alphonse DiBenedetto and Alfred E. DeCapua, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.
Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen. State of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
Before CLARK, Circuit Judge, and ANDERSON and TIMBERS, District Judges.
This is an application for a preliminary injunction in the pending civil action brought by the plaintiff as a citizen and voter of Connecticut to establish his rights to a representation in the Connecticut General Assembly more in accordance with the number of electors voting for the respective Senate and House members in the two chambers of the Connecticut legislature. The application was heard by a statutory court of three judges, convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284.
The plaintiff's voluminous complaint is based upon the now famous case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, and alleges that he and other voters in the State are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because of the debasement of their votes resulting from the disproportionate election districts of both the House and the Senate. As to the House, the extensive tables attached as exhibits to the complaint show that plaintiff, as a resident of New Haven, one of the larger cities of the State, shares representation by its two representatives with many more citizens than is the situation of the electors in many of the smaller towns of the State. But as to the Senate, he is a resident of one of the senatorial districts, which, as his complaint freely concedes, is overrepresented according to its population as compared to most other districts in the State and to the average of all the districts.
The present application concerns only representation in the Senate and does not deal with the House at all. The injunction is said to be immediately necessary because of the provision of Art. III, § 5, of the present Connecticut Constitution, C.G.S.A. — being Amendment XXXI of the earlier Constitution — authorizing the first session of the General Assembly after the decennial federal census to redistrict the Senate and providing that if it does not act no redistricting shall be until the first session after the next census. In Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 103 A.2d 818, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors established that the stated limitation is mandatory, so that if the first legislature in session after the census results are available does not act, no action is then possible for ten years and until the results of the next census are available. This is the provision heavily relied on by the plaintiff as showing the need of action before the 1961 Assembly is succeeded by the next biennial session, which was elected in November 1962 and which will convene on January 9, 1963.
In deciding the application we must proceed according to familiar principles of equity with respect to temporary injunctions designed essentially to preserve the status quo until adjudication can be had upon the merits. The matter is one for the wise discretion of the court, the usual rule being that a plaintiff is not entitled to this extraordinary and peremptory relief unless he shows that otherwise he would suffer irreparable loss. Societe Comptoir De L'Industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander's Dept. Stores, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 33, 35; Foundry Services, Inc. v. Beneflux Corp., 2 Cir., 206 F.2d 214, 216; United States v. Adler's Creamery, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 987, 990. Further, there must be a balancing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butterworth v. Dempsey
...Tawes, supra note 5, at 436, 180 A.2d at 669. 7 Appendix, p. 773. 8 Infra p. 764. 9 U.S.Const. art. VI, cl. 2. 10 In Valenti v. Dempsey, 211 F.Supp. 911, 913 (D.Conn.1962), this Court held that state constitutional limitations cannot bar relief required by the federal "* * * under Baker v. ......
-
Life Music, Inc. v. Wonderland Music Company
...299 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 1962); Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Swanee Paper Corp., 223 F.Supp. 617 (S.D.N.Y.1963); Valenti v. Dempsey, 211 F.Supp. 911 (D. Conn.1962). In copyright actions, the requisite showing of probable success is achieved by a prima facie showing that the moving party's c......
-
Drew v. Scranton, Civ. A. No. 8293
...was adopted, these provisions should be construed as directory only. 7 Sims v. Frink, M.D.Ala.1962, 208 F. Supp. 431; Valenti v. Dempsey, D.Conn. 1962, 211 F.Supp. 911; Sincock v. Duffy, D.Del.1963, 215 F.Supp. 169; Butterworth v. Dempsey, D.Conn.1964, 229 F. Supp. 8 This is not the represe......
-
Jelliffe v. Berdon, Civ. A. No. 14821.
...right has been established at trial, cannot cause loss to opposing interests far exceeding any that he may suffer", Valenti v. Dempsey, 211 F.Supp. 911, 912 (D. Conn.1962) (Clark, C. J., writing for a three judge district court); Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F. 2d 738, 743 (2......