Franklin v. Krause’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"distills the more recent thinking that the one man, one vote ideal, while not to be abandoned at the local level, can at least be tempered to meet local exigencies and preserve boundary lines. The plan before us comports with the standards set forth in Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors of County of Washington [citations omitted] as closely as is possible, given the unique situation created by Hempstead's size with the disparities in population among the other units. The fact that the plan still carries the problem found decisive in Franklin v. Mandeville should not constitute a continuing bar to validation. * * * * * * The plan before us has been `computerized' as suggested by the Iannucci requirement and moves close to one man, one vote without granting Hempstead 100% voting power. The total deviation is 7.3%, a tolerable figure within the contemplation of Abate and other recent cases.... In no way are we suggesting that the one man, one vote principle be abandoned at the local level. We will continue to insist that this ideal be the goal and that Iannucci be the guide. We merely conclude that the plan before us meets a sufficient standard when measured against the law as it now is with regard to local government. This law has assumed a desirable practicality because it allows for flexibility — something which at least prior to Abate v. Mundt [citations omitted] was lacking" ( id. at 242 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 885 , 298 N.E.2d 68 ) (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. NASSAU COUNTY BD. OF SUP'RS.

2. “There may be good reason for treating local government apportionment as a distinct problem. As the court noted in Abate [v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 , 91 S.Ct. 1904 , 29 L.Ed.2d 399 (1971) ], local legislative bodies have fewer members and local legislative districts have fewer voters than their State and national counterparts. Thus, it may be more difficult to devise apportionment plans that comply with numerical equality at the local level. Furthermore, there are over 80,000 units of local government serving various functions. A certain flexibility may, therefore, be desirable to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation at this level. 31 N.Y.2d at 428 n. 3, 293 N.E.2d at 71 n. 3, 340 N.Y.S.2d at 895 n. 3.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reform of Schoharie County v. Schoharie County Board of Supervisors

3. “This is precisely the point which caused our rejection of the former plan .... At the time that decision was handed down, the preachment was that one man, one vote had to be applied at all levels of government with mathematical certitude and this court was concerned with the scope of Hempstead's disenfranchisement. In the intervening years this stricture has been considerably softened with respect to local level government and this reshaping is most desirable, as demonstrated in the case at bar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. League of Women Voters v. Nassau County Board of Supervisors