Travia v. Lomenzo

1965-06-07

Headline: Court denies emergency stay and refuses to speed appeal, allowing New York’s special legislative election to proceed under a contested reapportionment plan despite state-court objections.

Holding: The Court denied the request to speed the appeal and denied the stay application, permitting the ordered November 1965 special legislative election under Plan A to proceed.

Real World Impact:

Allows the November 1965 special election under the disputed reapportionment plan.
Makes the appeal likely moot because it will be heard after the election.
Creates immediate voter and administrative uncertainty about legislative representation.

Topics: state legislative elections, redistricting, federal versus state power, emergency court orders

Summary

Background

State lawmakers passed several alternative reapportionment plans after a federal court found New York’s old legislative map unconstitutional. One plan, called "Plan A," was approved by a federal three-judge court as meeting federal requirements, but the New York Court of Appeals held all the plans violated the State Constitution because the Assembly would exceed 150 members. The federal court then ordered a special November 1965 election under Plan A; state legislative leaders sought to intervene and asked for the federal order to be changed.

Reasoning

An application for a stay of the federal order and a motion to accelerate the appeal were brought to a Justice acting as Circuit Justice and referred to the full Court under the Court’s procedural Rule. The Court, in a short per curiam action, denied the motion to accelerate and denied the stay application. The denial lets the November election proceed as the District Court directed. The opinion is unsigned, and it does not explain in detail why the emergency relief was refused.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to pause or speed the appeal, the ordered November election is allowed to go forward under Plan A even though the State’s highest court found that plan violated the State Constitution. In practical terms, that means voters, candidates, and state officials must prepare for the election now, and the appeal over the federal court’s authority and the plan’s validity will likely be decided after the election has occurred.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the questions are of great importance, that the Court should have accelerated briefing and heard the case promptly, and that the summary denial effectively forecloses full consideration.