One Man, One Vote

The Federal Court of Appeals' ruling last week that Massachusetts' congressional districts are malapportioned is an unusually strict, but justified, application of the Supreme Court's "one man, one vote" edict. The population difference between the State's largest and smallest congressional districts is 102,626 people, an imbalance which many apportionment experts do not consider extreme. The Federal Court, however, noted that when the General Court re-apportioned the state in 1962 it rejected two other apportionment plans which would have kept the maximum difference of population beteen any two districts to 50,000 people. Last Wednesday's decision, with its accompanying decree that the General Court re-district the State before the end of the current legislative session, provides the General Court with a chance to correct the negligence and selfishness of five years ago.

In 1962 a special commission suggested the two equitable plans to the General Court. Drawn primarily with the Supreme Court's ruling in mind, the proposed districts were a politician's nightmare. Finally Governor John A. Volpe threatened to veto one scheme, charging that it favored Democratic congressional candidates. The leadership of the General Court rejected the other, claiming that it favored Republican candidates. Both the Governor and the legislature, however, agreed to approve a plan proposed by a delegation of shrewd, if self-seeking, congressmen. This plan, which the court of appeals just ruled illegal, apportioned Massachusetts so that one Republican and one Democratic congressmen were eliminated and that the re-election of the seven Democrats and five Republicans remaining was assured.

Either one of the Harrington Commission's 1962 proposals would provide fairly drawn districts. Perhaps the threat of further Federal Court action will goad the Governor and General Court into re-examining them.