Ely v. Klahr

1971-06-07

Headline: Arizona reapportionment dispute affirmed: Court upholds district court’s decision to let the state's contested 1970 legislative map be used for elections while giving the legislature time to adopt a valid plan.

Holding: The Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment allowing the contested 1970 Arizona legislative map to be used for the 1970 elections while retaining jurisdiction and giving the legislature time to adopt a valid reapportionment plan.

Real World Impact:

Lets disputed 1970 legislative plan be used for the 1970 elections.
Gives Arizona Legislature until Nov. 1, 1971 to enact a valid reapportionment.
Raises risk that minorities are underrepresented when registration, not population, is used.

Topics: legislative reapportionment, state elections, voter registration counts, minority representation, incumbency and gerrymandering

Summary

Background

An Arizona voter challenged the State’s repeated efforts to redraw legislative districts after the 1960s. Federal judges had been supervising reapportionment since 1964, twice drawing temporary plans after legislative maps were declared unconstitutional. The legislature passed a new map in January 1970; the trial court found serious problems but allowed that map to be used for the 1970 elections while keeping the case open.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the federal trial court was wrong to refuse to block the State’s 1970 map from use in the imminent elections. The Supreme Court said the trial court did not err. The Court relied on the principle that legislatures get the first chance to draw districts and agreed it was reasonable to give Arizona time—until a November 1, 1971 deadline tied to new 1970 census figures—to adopt a constitutionally acceptable plan. The Court noted the trial court’s findings that the legislature’s computer-based plan used voter-registration estimates instead of true population, and that the computer prioritized protecting incumbents and creating one-party districts.

Real world impact

The practical effect is that the 1970 elections could stand, but the State must produce a valid reapportionment by the court’s timetable or face further judicial action. The opinion highlights a concrete danger: using voter registration instead of population can undercount poor and minority communities and preserve incumbent advantage. The ruling is not a final endorsement of any particular map; it affirms the trial court’s process and its retained oversight.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas (joined by Justice Black) stressed the plan’s harm to minorities and incumbency protection and urged quicker judicial action; Justice Harlan concurred in the result.