Franklin v. Mandeville, 28 N.Y.2d 68 (1971)
A county charter provision that permanently restricts the voting power of a town or city’s supervisors, regardless of population size, violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
Summary
This case concerns a challenge to Nassau County’s weighted voting plan, where the Town of Hempstead, despite having a majority of the county’s population, was restricted from exercising a majority vote on the Board of Supervisors due to a charter provision. The New York Court of Appeals held that the charter provision, which capped the voting power of any single town or city’s supervisors at 50%, unconstitutionally deprived residents of equal representation, violating the one person, one vote principle. The court ordered reapportionment but modified the lower court’s order to delay implementation until after the 1970 census data became available.
Facts
The Town of Hempstead constituted 57.12% of Nassau County’s population.
Under the existing weighted voting plan, Hempstead’s representatives could cast only 49.6% of the Board of Supervisors’ vote.
The Nassau County charter (§ 104, subd. 2) stipulated that “nor shall the supervisor or supervisors of any town, or city be entitled to cast more than fifty per centum of the total vote of said board.”
Two previous attempts to reapportion the board via referendums in 1965 and 1967 failed.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs challenged the weighted voting plan.
Special Term granted summary judgment, declaring the plan unconstitutional.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Special Term’s decision.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a county charter provision that limits the voting power of any town or city, regardless of population, violates the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.
Holding
Yes, because the charter provision perpetuates inequality and deprives residents of a town or city with a majority population from exercising a majority vote, regardless of how large that majority might be now or in the future.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that the key issue was not merely the existing inequality but the fact that the charter provision mandated and perpetuated it. It stated, “Important as is the fact of the present inequality, it is of even greater moment that inequality in some degree is mandated and, indeed, perpetuated by the charter provision”.
The court distinguished this case from Abate v. Mundt (25 N.Y.2d 309), noting that the charter provision actively prevented any town or city from achieving majority representation, regardless of population growth.
The court acknowledged the population growth in Hempstead and Nassau County, highlighting how this exacerbated the inequality created by the charter provision.
The court ordered reapportionment to address the constitutional violation. However, it modified the lower court’s order to postpone the implementation of a new plan until after the 1970 census data was available. The existing plan was to remain in effect as a temporary measure until then.