Blaikie v. Wagner, 26 N.Y.2d 31 (1970)
The “one person, one vote” principle does not apply to the election of judges, as their function is to apply the law, not to represent particular constituencies, and the volume and nature of litigation, not population, should guide the distribution of judges.
Summary
This case addresses whether the “one person, one vote” principle applies to the election of judges. The New York Court of Appeals held that it does not. The court reasoned that judges are not representatives of particular constituencies but are meant to apply the law impartially. The allocation of judges should be based on the volume and nature of litigation in different areas, not solely on population. This decision clarifies the distinct roles of the judiciary and the legislature, emphasizing that judicial functions differ significantly from those of representative government.
Facts
The plaintiffs argued that the method of electing judges to the New York City Civil Court violated the “one person, one vote” principle. They contended that the distribution of judges should be proportional to the population in each district. The plaintiffs sought to apply principles of electoral districting to the judicial selection process, arguing that unequal distribution of judges based on population diluted their voting power.
Procedural History
The case originated in a lower court, which ruled against the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The plaintiffs then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Issue(s)
Whether the “one person, one vote” principle, which requires legislative districts to be roughly equal in population, applies to the election of judges in the New York City Civil Court.
Holding
No, because the function of judges is to apply the law, not to represent particular constituencies; therefore, the principle of equal representation based on population does not govern the allocation or election of judges.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the “one person, one vote” principle is designed to ensure representative government in legislative bodies, which are responsible for enacting laws that govern all citizens. The judiciary, however, has a fundamentally different role. Judges are not meant to represent particular points of view or constituencies. Instead, their function is to apply the law impartially to the cases before them.
The court emphasized that the allocation of judges should be based on the volume and nature of litigation arising in various areas, not solely on population. “Population is not necessarily the sole, or even the most relevant, criterion for determining the distribution of state judges. The volume and nature of litigation arising in various areas of the state bears no direct relationship to the population of those areas.” (quoting New York State Assn. of Trial Lawyers v. Rockefeller, 267 F. Supp. 148, 153-154).
The court distinguished between the discretion exercised by the legislature in establishing electoral districts and the discretion required in determining how judges are allocated and chosen. The role of a judge is to apply the law, not to champion a particular cause or represent a specific constituency. The court affirmed the order, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the “one person, one vote” principle should apply to judicial elections.