Koenig v. Flynn

Background

A group of New York citizens and voters asked a court to force the Secretary of State to certify that representatives would be elected in new congressional districts set out in a concurrent resolution adopted April 10, 1931. New York had been allotted forty-five representatives under a recent federal apportionment, up from forty-three. The Secretary of State argued the concurrent resolution was ineffective because it had not been submitted to, and approved by, the Governor as required by state constitutional procedures and invoked federal provisions and an 1911 statute in defending that position.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the concurrent resolution could operate as the State’s law for creating new congressional districts without following the State’s approval steps. The State Court of Appeals treated the federal constitutional provision as requiring the exercise of the State’s lawmaking power and held the resolution ineffective for lacking the Governor’s approval. This Court affirmed that judgment for the reasons given in Smiley v. Holm decided the same day, sustaining the Secretary’s refusal to certify the new district elections.

Real world impact

Because no new districting statute properly divided New York into forty-five districts, the State’s courts had held that forty-three representatives would be elected under the existing districts and the two additional representatives would be elected at large. The Supreme Court’s affirmation leaves that arrangement in place unless and until the State enacts a valid districting law following its approval procedures.