Matter of Orans, 17 N.Y.2d 339 (1966)

A state constitutional provision prescribing the number of members in its assembly remains valid unless it is in unavoidable conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection requirements as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court; absent such conflict, the state provision controls legislative apportionment.

Summary

This case concerns a challenge to New York State statutes passed during a special legislative session in 1964, which created four plans for apportioning and districting the State Senate and Assembly. Petitioners argued that the statutes were illegal because they were passed at a special session and because each plan violated the state constitution by establishing an Assembly with more than 150 members, contrary to Article III, Section 2. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the state constitutional requirement of a 150-member Assembly remained in full effect because federal court decisions had not invalidated it. The Court emphasized the legislature’s duty to enact a new districting-apportionment statute adhering to this requirement.

Facts

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr, which opened the door to federal court intervention in state legislative apportionment, a lawsuit was filed challenging New York’s existing apportionment laws. The Supreme Court ultimately found New York’s apportionment unconstitutional because it did not adhere to the