Franklin v. Mandeville, 32 N.Y.2d 233 (1973)

While the one person, one vote principle is a guiding ideal for local government apportionment, complete mathematical perfection is not required, and a fair measure of superenfranchisement and disenfranchisement can be tolerated for the sake of preserving local units and ensuring effective governance.

Summary

This case addresses the constitutionality of a weighted voting plan adopted by the Nassau County Board of Supervisors. The court had previously rejected a prior plan because it excessively disenfranchised residents of the Town of Hempstead. The new plan aimed to address this by distributing voting power among the six supervisors based on population, but with certain adjustments to avoid granting any one supervisor or town absolute control. The court ultimately upheld the revised plan, acknowledging that strict mathematical equality is not always achievable or desirable at the local level, and that preserving the integrity of political subdivisions is a valid consideration.

Facts

Following the 1970 census, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors was ordered to create a new apportionment plan after a prior plan was struck down. The board devised a weighted voting system where each of the six supervisors was allocated votes based on the population of their respective town or city: Hempstead (2 supervisors) with 35 votes each, Oyster Bay with 32 votes, North Hempstead with 23 votes, Long Beach with 3 votes, and Glen Cove with 2 votes. A computer analysis was used to determine the allocation. The total number of votes was 130. To prevent Hempstead (representing over 50% of the population) from having absolute control, a majority required 71 votes instead of 66, and a two-thirds vote required 92 votes instead of 87.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs challenged the new weighted voting plan in Special Term, arguing that it contained the same flaws as the previously rejected plan and that weighted voting was per se unacceptable. Special Term agreed and ordered the board to devise a new plan based on multi-member or single-member districts. The Board of Supervisors appealed directly to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a weighted voting plan for a county board of supervisors is constitutional, even if it does not achieve perfect mathematical equality in representation, when it aims to preserve the integrity of local political subdivisions and ensure effective governance.

Holding

Yes, because while the one person, one vote principle is a guiding ideal, complete mathematical perfection is not required at the local level, and a fair measure of superenfranchisement and disenfranchisement can be tolerated to preserve local units and ensure effective governance.

Court’s Reasoning

The court recognized that strict adherence to the one person, one vote principle is more critical at the congressional and state levels than at the local level. Citing Abate v. Mundt and Mahan v. Howell, the court acknowledged that variations from a pure population standard might be justified by state policy considerations such as preserving the integrity of political subdivisions. The court emphasized that local legislative bodies have fewer members and districts, making it more difficult to achieve numerical equality. The court also noted that there are numerous local government units, and flexibility is desirable to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation. The court stated, “We now know that if complete mathematical perfection is not achieved at the local level there need be no reason to discard an apportionment plan solely for that reason. It has now become clear that a fair measure of superenfranchisement and disenfranchisement can be tolerated for the sake of the preservation of local units.” The court found that the plan before it comported with the standards set forth in Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors of County of Washington as closely as possible, given the unique situation created by Hempstead’s size and the disparities in population among the other units. The court concluded that the plan allowed Hempstead’s citizens to have a weighty voice in the legislative process while preventing them from always overwhelming the citizens of the other units. The court emphasized that they were not abandoning the one person, one vote principle at the local level, but that the plan before them met a sufficient standard when measured against the law as it now is with regard to local government. The court noted that the revised plan moved close to one person, one vote without granting Hempstead 100% voting power, and the total deviation of 7.3% was tolerable within the contemplation of Abate and other recent cases. The court reversed the judgment and granted the appellants’ cross motion approving the plan.