“It is impossible, where Senate district boundaries are changed, to avoid having *516 some voters represented by a Senator for whom they had no opportunity to support or oppose.”
How later courts described this case
- “It is impossible, where Senate district boundaries are changed, to avoid having *516 some voters represented by a Senator for whom they had no opportunity to support or oppose.”
- "It is impossible, where Senate district boundaries are changed, to avoid having some voters represented by a Senator for whom they had no opportunity to support or oppose."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I generally concur in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, although I see no need for us to “correct” or otherwise explain Reynolds v. State Election Board, 233 F.Supp. 323 (W.D.Okl.1964). At the same time I do agree that the United States Constitution permits consideration of the requirements of a state constitution concerning such factors as compactness, contiguity, historical precedent, and the like, so long as such does not impinge upon the overriding requirement of numerical equality prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 , 84 S.Ct. 1362 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440 , 87 S.Ct. 569 , 17 L.Ed.2d 501 (1967); and Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 , 89 S.Ct. 1225 , 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969).