Hughes v. WMCA, Inc.

Background

These consolidated cases come from disputes in New York and Virginia about how legislative seats are drawn and when elections should be held. In New York, a court found the State’s method of assigning legislative seats invalid but allowed a November 1964 election under the old map while ordering that those elected serve only one year and that a new election be held in November 1965 under a valid plan. In Virginia, courts likewise found the maps invalid; after appeals the court ordered reapportionment in time for the 1965 House election and a special two-year Senate election.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court issued a brief, unanimous per curiam decision granting motions to affirm the lower courts’ judgments. Two Justices (White and Goldberg) joined the New York affirmance with the understanding that the District Court could later change its own order if circumstances required. The Court therefore left intact the District Courts’ interim solutions that allowed elections under invalid maps but shortened certain terms and scheduled replacement elections.

Real world impact

Practically, these orders mean some legislators elected under invalid maps will serve shortened terms, states will run extra elections in consecutive years, and the usual between-session legislative work (committees, hearings, drafting) may be disrupted. The opinion shows the Supreme Court summarily endorsed the district courts’ temporary remedies rather than deciding the broader legal question about how far a federal judge may go in shaping interim election relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Clark, dissented, saying these cases raise important questions about the proper scope of federal courts’ power to craft temporary election remedies and deserved full argument.