Wells v. Rockefeller/Concurrence Fortas

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
934741Wells v. Rockefeller — ConcurrenceAbe Fortas
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Fortas
Dissenting Opinions
Harlan
White

United States Supreme Court

394 U.S. 542

Wells  v.  Rockefeller

 Argued: Jan. 13, 1969. --- Decided: April 7, 1969


Mr. Justice FORTAS, concurring.

I concur in the judgment of the Court and in its opinion except to the extent that the opinion relies upon the Court's opinion in the Missouri redistricting cases, Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519, which I have not joined for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in those cases.

New York does not attempt to defend its plan as a good-faith effort to achieve districts of approximate equality. It argues that it devised a plan based upon the grouping of districts into regions. I agree with the majority that, for purposes of the congressional districting here involved, the State may not substantially or grossly disregard population or residence figures in order to recognize regional groupings within the State. See my dissent in Avery v. Midland County, 90 U.S. 474, 495, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 1126,

Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, dissenting.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse