stating the jurisdictional test for Section 2284 as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- stating the jurisdictional test for Section 2284 as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body” (emphasis added)
- holding that three-judge courts are mandatory for cases encompassed within § 2284(a)
- describing the test for section 2284(a) as whether “there exists a non-frivolous constitutional challenge to the apportionment of a statewide legislative body”
- “[T]he sufficiency of the complaint for three-judge jurisdictional purposes must be determined by the claims stated in the complaint and not by the way the facts turn out.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with Judge Merritt that the constitutional claim must be heard by a three judge court. However, I would address the merits of the Section 2 Voting Rights Act claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 . When a plaintiff asserts both a constitutional claim and a statutory claim that is within the jurisdiction of a single district judge, that judge may resolve the statutory claim. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543-44 , 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1382-83 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). The district judge has passed on the statutory claim which she had jurisdiction to consider. I express no opinion at this time as to the correctness of that decision.