Court Allows Reapportioning Pending Ruling

The Supreme Court, acting in a political gerrymandering case with far-reaching implications, issued an order Monday allowing the state of Indiana to use temporarily a reapportionment plan ruled unconstitutional last year by a lower court.

The justices granted an emergency request by Indiana officials for a stay of the lower court ruling, allowing the redistricting plan to remain in effect for the 1986 primary elections pending a decision later this term by the high court.

The case is one of the most widely watched on the court’s docket. At issue is a reapportionment plan devised by Indiana Republicans that was struck down by a three-judge federal District Court, even though it complied with “one-man, one-vote” proportional representation standards.

Democratic Vote

The District Court said the plan discriminated against Democrats by effectively diluting their vote. The court relied heavily on the fact that Democratic candidates for the state House of Representatives in 1982 won 52% of the overall statewide vote but gained only 43% of the seats.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the time-honored practice of partisan gerrymandering--where the political party in power draws legislative boundaries to ensure its continued dominance. Thus, the justices’ decision to review the Indiana case sparked considerable interest in California and other states where gerrymandering has been hotly debated.

A Democratic plan in effect in California is being challenged by Republicans in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Under that plan, Republican congressional candidates out-polled Democratic candidates in 1984--winning more than 49% of the overall vote. But they captured only 40% of the state’s 45 seats in the House.

The Indiana case (Davis vs. Bandemer, 48-1244) could be decided any time before the court adjourns next summer. Indiana officials had asked the justices to suspend the lower court ruling for now and allow them to proceed under the current plan in advance of the May primary.

Requirements Satisfied

The court responded by granting a stay, noting in a brief order that the state appeared to have satisfied all of the legal requirements for such action.

Joseph Remcho of San Francisco, an attorney representing Democrats in the California case, welcomed the stay as “marvelous,” saying it could well be an indication that the justices are preparing to reverse the lower court ruling.

But both Remcho and James R. Parrinello, a San Francisco lawyer representing the Republicans in the California case, said it also was possible that the court issued the stay simply to allow Indiana officials to plan for an election while the justices wrestled further with a complex and potentially far-reaching decision that could go either way.

“It may be that it will take quite a bit more time for the court to come up with a majority opinion in the case,” Parrinello said.