# Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Woolley

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · June 6, 1960 · 33 N.J. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700834

## Case

- **Full name:** Asbury Park Press, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. Russell Woolley, County Clerk of the County of Monmouth, Et Al., Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** June 6, 1960
- **Citations:** 33 N.J. 1; 161 A.2d 705; 1960 N.J. LEXIS 131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Proctor
- **Judges:** Francis, Proctor
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700834

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the equal proportions method "seems generally to be regarded as producing the smallest relative differences in population per assemblyman and the smallest relative difference in the individual share in an assemblyman."

## Opinion text

Proctor, J.
(concurring). I agree with the views expressed in the majority opinion that the voters’ constitutional right to equal representation in the General Assembly is violated when the Legislature, despite significant population shifts among the several counties of the State, fails to reapportion its membership after a census. I also agree that although, as stated in the majority opinion, it is now *23 obvious under any recognized formula that “at least one county is over-represented by a minimum of one too many assemblymen, while another county is under-represented by one too few assemblymen,” this appeal should be held, because the time has passed for appropriate judicial action with regard to members of the General Assembly already elected. Judicial action at this time would be inappropriate, and I think that, in light of the views expressed today by this court, the Legislature should be afforded an opportunity to heed the constitutional mandate to reapportion. But I feel that I should make clear the course of action I would take in the event the Legislature does not act to reapportion in accordance with the constitutional mandate a reasonable time before the 1961 primary election for the members of the General Assembly. If the Legislature fails to act by that time I would entertain an application to enjoin the Secretary of State and the clerk of any county which is palpably over-represented in the General Assembly to notify the board of elections of such county that there is to be elected only such number of assemblymen as the county is constitutionally entitled to. I would also entertain an application to enjoin the Secretary of State and the clerk of any county that is palpably under-represented to notify the board of elections of such county that there is to be elected the full number of assemblymen as the population of such county clearly requires. Of course, if at that time some other equally effective method of enforcing the constitutional mandate is suggested, I would also consider it.
The majority opinion stresses the point that the 1960 census figures may soon be available to the Legislature. At this time I have no way of knowing whether the Legislature will have these figures in time for action on its part affecting the 1961 election. But, whether or not it has them, if it fails to act I think the court must, upon a proper and seasonable showing, issue its mandate in vindication of the right of equal representation secured by the Constitution.
*24 I am authorized to say that Justice Schettino joins in this concurring opinion.
Proctor and Schettino, JJ., concurring in result.
To hold — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 7.
Opposed — None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700834. Public record. Not legal advice.