Supreme Court Accepts Reapportionment Case

The Supreme Court today set the stage for a major reapportionment ruling by agreeing to decide whether political boundary drawing that meets balanced-voting standards but favors one political party over another is unconstitutional.

The court will study a case involving Indiana legislative districts in which Democrats said they were unlawfully discriminated against.

At the same time, the court refused to hear a similar case involving California congressional districts in which Republicans claimed that they were discriminated against.

The Supreme Court, in establishing the “one-person, one-vote” principle, has ruled in the past that election districts must be populated equally. But the court has never said that partisan advantage can be grounds for overturning a plan that adheres to balanced-voting standards.

Use of Computers

The new case raises the issue of whether high technology now allows parties in power to use computers to manipulate district lines to undermine the opposing party’s chances of winning its fair share of seats in Congress and state legislatures.

A three-judge federal court that threw out a legislative districting plan in Indiana said “the fundamental American principle of self-government is threatened” by the new map-making techniques.

The appeals court said GOP “gerrymandering” bunched Democratic voters in some districts so that their strength there was overpowering. But Republican voters were divided up strategically to help win close races, the panel said. The appeals court allowed the districts to be used for the 1984 election, but barred their use in the future.

California Republicans, who unsuccessfully challenged congressional districts there, said control of the House of Representatives is at stake in the reapportionment issue.

How this gerrymandering issue is resolved “will determine who will decide the membership of the House of Representatives: clever draftsmen or the American voters,” the California GOP said.

A federal appeals court said last November that it was not satisfied that the California Republicans had exhausted all opportunity to have their claim settled in state courts.

Pacific Gas Case

In other cases, the court:

--Agreed to decide whether states may force privately owned utility companies to include with customers’ bills information from consumer groups and other organizations. The justices will study Pacific Gas & Electric Co. arguments that a California state agency violated its free-speech rights by requiring the utility to include such material in its billing envelopes.

--Declined to hear an appeal by five FBI officials ordered to pay damages to anti-Vietnam War and civil rights activists who were targets of government spying in the 1960s and 1970s.

--Let stand a ruling that the maker of Bayer Aspirin and other pain relievers engaged in deceptive advertising. Last August an appeals court in San Francisco upheld an order by the Federal Trade Commission that ads for Bayer and two other products, Cope and Midol, were misleading. The ads have been off the air since 1973.

--Refused to restrict prison officials from using Mace to maintain order and enforce discipline.

--Let stand James Briley’s death sentence for the murders of a Richmond, Va., woman and her young son.