WHITCOMB v. CHAVIS, 396 U.S. 1064 (1970)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
WHITCOMB v. CHAVIS , 396 U.S. 1064 (1970)396 U.S. 1064
Edgar D. WHITCOMB, Governor of the
State of Indiana, appellant,
v.
Patrick CHAVIS et al.
No. ____.
Supreme Court of the United States
February 6, 1970
James Manahan, on the motion.
The emergency motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970, is denied. The motion to advance is denied without prejudice to its renewal following the filing of the statement as to jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissenting from the denial of the motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970:
'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 appellees 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 State contends that
without a stay it 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 appellees 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.'
Opinions
v.
Patrick CHAVIS et al.
No. ____. Supreme Court of the United States February 6, 1970 James Manahan, on the motion. The emergency motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970, is denied. The motion to advance is denied without prejudice to its renewal following the filing of the statement as to jurisdiction. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissenting from the denial of the motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970:
U.S. Supreme Court
WHITCOMB v. CHAVIS , 396 U.S. 1064 (1970) 396 U.S. 1064 Edgar D. WHITCOMB, Governor of the State of Indiana, appellant,v.
Patrick CHAVIS et al.
No. ____. Supreme Court of the United States February 6, 1970 James Manahan, on the motion. The emergency motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970, is denied. The motion to advance is denied without prejudice to its renewal following the filing of the statement as to jurisdiction. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissenting from the denial of the motion to vacate or modify the stay order of February 2, 1970:
'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 appellees 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 State contends that
without a stay it will be forced to conduct the forthcoming
election under the reapportionment plan of the District Court. By
granting the stay, however,
Page 396 U.S.
1064 , 1065
this Court has equally forced the appellees 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.'
Search This Case
