McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Commission
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1DissentLaVECCHIA, J.
Article IV, § 2, ¶ 3 of the New Jersey Constitution was, until today, a vital provision of our law. A majority of the Court is content to jettison the provision based on a perceived Supremacy Clause concern. I disagree with the Court’s presumption of a prior invalidation of the state constitutional provision based on past decisions of this Court. I also disagree that the record supports the majority’s conclusion that, in any event, Supremacy Clause concerns require our constitutional provision to be declared unenforceable in this instance. In my view, the majority misperceives the interplay…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- South Carolina v. KatzenbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Mahan v. HowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Voinovich v. QuilterSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.