|
|
Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108 (1971)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108 (1971)
Ely v. Klahr No. 548 Argued March 23, 1971 Decided June 7, 1971 403 U.S. 108
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Syllabus
Appellant, in this suit filed in 1964 challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s state legislative districting laws, attacked the State’s third attempt to enact a valid apportionment plan. The District Court found the plan constitutionally deficient in several respects, but, because of the proximity of the 1970 elections (which would be the last held before the 1970 census data became available for new plans) and because the court concluded that the main difficulty was the State’s large population increase since the last census, upheld the legislature’s plan as the least unsatisfactory alternative (including appellant’s plan). In its order, the court "assume[d] that the Arizona Legislature will, by November 1, 1971, enact a valid plan of reapportionment," but that, "[u]pon failure of the Legislature so to do, any party to this action may apply to the court for appropriate relief." Though the 1970 general election was held on the basis of the state law as thus upheld, appellant contends that the District Court should now adopt an apportionment plan which would be displaced only if the legislature adopts a valid plan.
Held: The District Court did not err in affording the legislature a reasonable time to enact a constitutionally adequate apportionment plan for the 1972 elections, on the basis of the 1970 census figures which will presumably be available, that court being in the best position to know if the November 1 deadline will be adequate to facilitate its consideration of the legislative plan and to enable it to prepare its own plan if the official version is not constitutional. Pp. 114-115.
313 F.Supp. 148, affirmed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BLACK, J., joined, post, p. 116. HARLAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the result, post, p. 123.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108 (1971) in 403 U.S. 108 403 U.S. 109. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FQ2DNQPBIH9RHMZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108 (1971), in 403 U.S. 108, page 403 U.S. 109. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FQ2DNQPBIH9RHMZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108 (1971). cited in 1971, 403 U.S. 108, pp.403 U.S. 109. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FQ2DNQPBIH9RHMZ.
|