WHITCOMB, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA
v.
CHAVIS ET AL.
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
After a trial on June 17 and 18, 1969, a three-judge District Court entered an order on July 28,1969, in which it held the multi-member districting provisions of the present Indiana apportionment statutes unconstitutional as they applied to Marion County, Indiana. The State was given until October 1, 1969, to enact statutes redistricting the State so as to correct the constitutional infirmity. Upon the State’s failure to enact such statutes, the District Court, on December 15, 1969, entered an order establishing legislative districts in the State. This Court, on February 2, 1970, granted a stay of the District Court’s December 15 order pending the filing and disposition of an appeal from that order. The respondents have now filed a motion to vacate the stay. I would grant the motion. The constitutionality of the present Indiana apportionment scheme was thoroughly briefed and argued in the three-judge District Court below. There is no reason to disturb the order of that court pending the disposition of the appeal by this Court. The date for the commencement of filing for the November 1970 election to the General Assembly is February 24, 1970. The Governor contends that without a stay the State will be forced to conduct the forthcoming election under the reapportionment plan of the District Court. By granting the stay, however, this Court has equally forced the respondents to go through the election under the present scheme which was held unconstitutional by the District Court. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to stay the order of the District Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Md. Citizens FOR A Representative Gen. Assembly v. Governor OF Maryland, 429 F.2d 606 (4th Cir. 1970)…n February 6, 1970, the Court refused to vacate that stay, with Justice Douglas dissenting on the ground that the effect of the stay was to allow the election to occur under an apportionment which the District Court had found to be unconstitutional. 396 U.S. 1064, 90 S.Ct. 761, 25 L.Ed.2d 82. We believe that the same considerations which are present in Chavis are present in this case, and that here, as in Chavis, the federal courts should withhold relief regardless of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim. In…
-
Chisom v. Buddy Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1988)…ding elections. In another instance, the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s hand after a three-judge court found Indiana’s multi-member districting provisions unconstitutional. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 748, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 and 396 U.S. 1064, 90 S.Ct. 761, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970) (granting a stay pending appeal, 305 F.Supp. 1359, 1364 (S.D.Ind.1969)). See also Maryland Citizens v. Governor of Maryland, 429 F. 2d 606 (4th Cir.1970); Dillard v. Crenshaw County; Banks v. Bd. of Ed., City of…1 / 2