In re Orans, 17 N.Y.2d 108 (1966)
When a state legislature fails to enact a valid reapportionment plan, the judiciary has the authority and responsibility to create a constitutional plan to ensure fair representation.
Summary
This case addresses the judicial reapportionment of New York State’s legislative districts after the legislature failed to produce a valid plan. Following an initial ruling that the legislature’s plans were unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals appointed a Judicial Commission to develop a reapportionment plan. The Court ultimately approved and promulgated the Commission’s plan, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles of fair representation when the legislative branch is unable to do so. The decision underscores the balance of power and the judiciary’s duty to uphold constitutional rights in the face of legislative inaction. The Court also provided a mechanism for addressing any technical defects in the approved plan.
Facts
Following the 1960 census, the New York State Legislature attempted to reapportion the state’s Senate and Assembly districts. Four plans were presented, but the Supreme Court, New York County, deemed all of them invalid. The Speaker of the Assembly and the President Pro Tern of the Senate then sought judicial intervention to reapportion the state for the 1966 elections.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, New York County, initially invalidated the legislature’s reapportionment plans. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Orans, 15 N.Y.2d 339. Subsequently, the Supreme Court allowed the legislative leaders to intervene and ordered a judicial reapportionment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals on a certified question regarding the propriety of the judicial reapportionment.
Issue(s)
Whether, in the absence of a valid legislative reapportionment plan, the judiciary has the power and duty to create and implement a constitutional reapportionment plan for the state’s legislative districts.
Holding
Yes, because when the legislature fails to enact a valid reapportionment plan that meets constitutional requirements, the judiciary has the authority and responsibility to step in and ensure fair representation by creating a constitutional plan.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals recognized that the legislature had failed to produce a constitutional reapportionment plan. To remedy this, the Court appointed a Judicial Commission comprised of distinguished citizens to develop a plan. The Court emphasized the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution, particularly in safeguarding the principle of