[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 718, Davis, Secretary, State Board of Elections, et al. v. Mann et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
John H. Hughes, pro se, for appellants in No. 623.
Leonard B. Sand, Max Gross, Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein and Robert B. McKay for appellees in No. 623.
Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General, David J. Mays and Henry T. Wickham for appellants in No. 718.
Edmund D. Campbell and E. A. Prichard for Mann et al., and Henry E. Howell, Jr., Leonard B. Sachs and Sidney H. Kelsey for Glanville et al., appellees in No. 718.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG join the affirmance in No. 623 since it is their understanding that it in no way interferes with the power of the District Court, in the light of circumstances as they may develop, to vacate or otherwise modify its order requiring an election in the fall of 1965.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK joins, dissenting.
Both of these cases, today affirmed summarily by the Court, raise serious problems concerning the scope of [379 U.S. 694, 695] the discretion of a federal court to fashion interim relief in state reapportionment cases, matters not hitherto decided by this Court.
The District Court, on July 27, 1964, entered a decree permitting the November 1964 elections to be conducted under the invalidated plan, but limiting the term of the Legislature to one year. The decree also ordered that an election be held in November 1965 under a valid apportionment plan, to be enacted by the Legislature by April 1, 1965, ** and that the Legislature elected in 1965 would also serve for only one year so that the November 1966 election would be held as scheduled by state law. As a result of this order New York will have to conduct three elections in as many years, and forgo the normal work of the Legislature between sessions. [379 U.S. 694, 696]
The orders of the District Courts entered in these two cases present for me important questions which deserve plenary consideration by this Court. I would note probable jurisdiction in both cases and set them for argument on the earliest practicable date at the next argument session of the Court commencing March 1.
[ Footnote ** ] Such a plan, enacted by the New York Legislature, has recently been approved by the District Court.