Matter of Legislature v. Cuomo, 31 N.Y.2d 43 (1972)
When redistricting a state legislature, the principle of equal population among districts is pre-eminent, but the historical and traditional significance of counties should be preserved where possible without unduly sacrificing population equality.
Summary
This case concerns a challenge to New York’s legislative redistricting plan, arguing that the legislature excessively prioritized population equality over preserving county lines, resulting in a partisan gerrymander. The Court of Appeals upheld the redistricting plan, emphasizing that while population equality is paramount under the Fourteenth Amendment, the state constitution’s requirements for compact, contiguous, and convenient districts conterminous with political subdivisions must also be considered. The court found that the legislature made a good-faith effort to balance these competing concerns, and the plan’s deviations from county lines were not so egregious as to invalidate it. The court also declined to intervene in the alleged partisan gerrymander, finding the record insufficient to address the complex issues involved.
Facts
Following the 1970 census, the New York State Legislature enacted Chapter 11 of the Laws of 1972 to redistrict and reapportion the State Senate and Assembly. Petitioners challenged the redistricting plan, arguing it violated the State Constitution by unnecessarily dividing counties to achieve near-perfect population equality. They also claimed the plan constituted a partisan gerrymander and that the legislature misapplied the constitutional formula for adjusting the size of the Senate. Further, petitioners alleged that incorrect census data was used.
Procedural History
The petitioners brought a consolidated proceeding to challenge Chapter 11. Special Term dismissed the petitions and granted summary judgment declaring Chapter 11 valid. This decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, and then to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the legislative redistricting plan excessively divided counties in violation of the State Constitution, despite achieving substantial population equality among districts.
2. Whether the legislative redistricting plan constituted an impermissible partisan gerrymander in violation of the State Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether the Legislature misapplied the constitutional formula for adjusting the size of the Senate.
4. Whether the bill enacting the redistricting plan complied with the State Constitution’s requirement that bills lie on legislators’ desks for three calendar legislative days prior to passage.
5. Whether the Legislature used correct census data in apportioning the State.
Holding
1. No, because the Federal constitutional requirement of substantial equality of population among legislative districts is pre-eminent, and the State constitutional requirements must be harmonized with the Federal standard.
2. No, because the record was insufficient to demonstrate the invidious effects of the alleged gerrymander or to address the threshold questions of group size and degree of common interest necessary for protection.
3. No, because the Legislature has some flexibility in working out the complexities of the constitutional formula for readjusting the size of the Senate, and the method used was reasonable.
4. Yes, because there was substantial compliance with the letter and spirit of the constitutional requirement.
5. Yes, because the best available 1970 Federal census data were used.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while the State Constitution emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of county lines, the Federal constitutional requirement of equal population is paramount. The Legislature achieved a plan with very low population deviation, demonstrating a good-faith effort to comply with the equal-population principle. The Court stated that “the historic and traditional significance of counties in the districting process should be continued where and as far as possible” (Matter of Orans, 15 N.Y.2d 339, 352), but not at the expense of population equality. The Court emphasized, “Our duty is, rather, to determine whether the legislative plan substantially complies with the Federal and State Constitutions.”
Regarding the gerrymandering claim, the Court acknowledged the anti-gerrymander provisions of the State Constitution but found the record insufficient to determine whether an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander had occurred. The court recognized that “the gerrymander is, concededly, rather deep in the ‘political thicket,’” and declined to intervene without a more substantial showing of invidious effects. The Court emphasized that the constitutional requirements of compactness, contiguity and convenience lack vitality and were adopted for the purpose of averting political gerrymandering, risking having a districting plan set aside.
The Court upheld the Legislature’s method for adjusting the size of the Senate, finding that it was a reasonable interpretation of the constitutional formula, even if different from past practices. The Court found “no authority according constitutional stature to this method of computation [used in previous apportionments].”
Finally, the Court found substantial compliance with the requirement that the bill lie on legislators’ desks for three days and determined that the Legislature used the best available census data. The court noted “The clear purpose of this provision is to prevent hasty and careless legislation, to prohibit amendments at the last moment, and to insure that the proposed legislation receives adequate publicity and consideration.”