381 U.S. June 1, 1965. UNITED STATES v. LEITER MINERALS, INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 950. Decided June 1, 1965.* Certiorari granted, judgment vacated and cases remanded to District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Reported below: 329 F. 2d 85. Solicitor General Cox and Roger P. Marquis for the United States. Francis R. Kirkham, Turner H. McBaine, Eugene D. Saunders and Charles D. Marshall for petitioners in No. 951. Saul Stone and E. Drew McKinnis for Buras et al. PER CURIAM. The motion of Alma Buras et al. to be added as parties respondent is granted. Upon consideration of the joint suggestion of mootness, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. The cases are remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. *Together with No. 951, California Co. et al. v. Leiter Minerals, Inc., et al., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court. 773-305 0-65-31 June 1, 1965. 381 U.S. KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 995. Decided June 1, 1965. 231 F. Supp. 95, affirmed. Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman for appellant. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerome S. Wagshal and Donald L. Hardison for the United States. PER CURIAM. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294 and United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U. S. 271. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting. We would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. In so voting, we indicate no opinion on the merits. Under the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 (1964 ed.), this is appellant's first and only appeal. So long as this statute remains on the books and Congress provides no intermediate review, see United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U. S. 174, 175, it is our view that the policy of the Act is, in general, best served by plenary rather than summary dispositions of such appeals. Ibid. Of course, if the question presented by an appeal is plainly insubstantial or directly governed by a controlling decision of this Court, summary disposition would still be appropriate. Since we do not believe that this can be said of this case, we would give plenary consideration to this appeal. JORDAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Affirmed. No. 935. Decided June 1, 1965. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorneys General, Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Attorney General, and Herman F. Selvin for appellants. Phill Silver, appellee, pro se. PER CURIAM. The motion of the appellant the Senate of the Legislature of California to take judicial notice of official judicial records is denied. The motion to strike the motion to dismiss or affirm is also denied. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, concurring. The California Constitution reserves to the people of the State the initiative power to propose constitutional amendments by filing a petition with the Secretary of State. If the petition is signed by 8% of the persons who voted in the preceding gubernatorial election, the proposed amendment will be submitted to the people at the next general election, and only a bare majority vote of the people is required in order to pass the amendment. Prior to 1926 the California Constitution, Art. IV, § 6, provided that both houses of the legislature would be apportioned on the basis of population. In 1926 an 1 Calif. Const., Art. IV, § 1. "For the purpose of choosing members of the legislature, the state shall be divided into forty senatorial and eighty assembly districts, as nearly equal in population as may be, and composed of contiguous initiative measure, known as Proposition 28, was submitted to the voters which deleted the requirement that the Senate be apportioned on a strict population basis, leaving the method of apportioning the Assembly unaffected. The statements accompanying the measure, which were distributed to all voters, described the proposition as an attempt to provide a federal-type plan for California, similar to the apportionment of the United States Congress, and summarized the arguments pro and con the proposal. Proposition 28 was approved by a territory, to be called senatorial and assembly districts." Calif. Const. of 1879, Art. IV, § 6, in Calif. Laws 1925, p. xi. 3 "For the purpose of choosing members of the legislature, the state shall be divided into forty senatorial and eighty assembly districts to be called senatorial and assembly districts. Such districts shall be composed of contiguous territory, and assembly districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be. Each senatorial district shall choose one senator and each assembly district shall choose one member of assembly. . . . [I]n the formation of senatorial districts no county or city and county shall contain more than one senatorial district, and the counties of small population shall be grouped in districts of not to exceed three counties in any one senatorial district . . . . Calif. Laws 1927, p. lxxxv. Another measure, Proposition 20, was also submitted to the voters in the 1926 election, which would have preserved the apportionment of both houses on a strict population basis. This proposition was defeated by a vote of 492,923 to 319,456. Record 37. "Argument in Favor of Legislative Reapportionment Initiative Measure. "FEDERAL PLAN.' "This proposed constitutional amendment will take the place of section 6, article 4, of the constitution of California, which now provides that the state shall be divided into forty senatorial districts and eighty assembly districts 'as nearly equal in population as may be, and composed of contiguous territory.' "The growth of city population in California, and particularly the unprecedented development of the two great urban regions of the state, will have the effect, if representation is reapportioned according to present law, of consolidating political power in the inhabitants of 3 per cent of the area of the state to the prejudice of the representa popular vote of 437,003 to 363,208 in the November 1926 election, and the following year the legislature adopted apportionment statutes to effectuate the constitutional tive rights of the balance of the population who inhabit 97 per cent of the area of the state. The state legislature, foreseeing disadvantages to the general interests of the state, has repeatedly declined, since the publication of the last federal census, to reapportion representation on the basis of the existing law. "The present amendment would alter the constitution so as to enable the legislature to find a solution to the difficulty that will protect the right of the great bulk of the state to fair representation. "The plan is called the 'Federal Plan' because its provisions resemble those of the federal constitution with respect to representation in the United States congress. It rests upon a principle widely recognized in American government and other governments that representation in a public assembly is equitably apportioned not according to population alone but according to two factors-population and territory. "The measure will preserve to rural California and the great agricultural producing areas which comprise it, the control of one house of the state legislature, namely: the senate. The measure makes no change in assembly districts. It does not increase the members of the legislature. It can not, in any way, add to state expense. "Under this plan no county or city and county has more than one senator. The small counties are grouped, but are given at least one senator to each three counties. There are fifty-eight counties in the state and forty senators. To illustrate the working of the plan, twenty-seven of these counties might, by reason of superior population, each elect one senator; sixteen counties grouped in twos might elect eight; and fifteen counties grouped in threes might elect five. Every large homogeneous geographical area of the state is assured one representative in the senate. "Twenty-nine states of the Union have based their legislative representation in some form upon this principle, and these states include, among others, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Ohio. The principle was submitted to a popular election in Ohio in 1903, and was overwhelmingly adopted by 731,000 votes for it and only 26,479 votes against the principle. This amendment is sponsored by the California Farm Bureau Federation, the State Grange, the Farmers Union, and the Agricultural Legislative Committee. But it is also supported by chambers of commerce, women's lubs, and civic organizations generally throughout the state. It will |