Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:The necessity for reapportioning and redistricting the Legislative and Senatorial Districts of Pennsylvania and also the House of Representatives in Congress was mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in a series of cases commencing with Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 621; Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713; WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633; Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695; also Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, re. congressional districts.
These decisions, in effect, declared Unconstitutional not merely the insupportable Constitution of Georgia and a number of obviously gerrymandered districts in some States, but also (1) the Constitution of Pennsyl*356vania (see Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A. 2d 556) and of nearly every State in our Country, as wen as (2) the composition of the House of Representatives in Congress.
What is the New Law and What , are the New Standards?
The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court held: “. . . that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of. its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable.* We realize that it is a. practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.
“In Wesberry v. Sanders, supra, [376 U.S. 1, 7-8] the Court stated that congressional representation must be based on population as nearly as ..is practicable,
“A State may legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions, insofar, as possible, and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory in designing a legislative apportionment scheme. Yalid considerations may underlie such aims....
“. . . Whatever the means of accomplishment, the overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts,...
“. . . So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the *357apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (pages 577, 578, 579).
Furthermore, there must be no invidious discrimination. Cf. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S., supra, pp. 566, 578; cf. also, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 355; Baker v. Carr (Concurring Opinion by Douglas, J.), 369 U.S. 186, 244; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541.
In other words, the Supreme Court held that each House of a State Legislature (a) must have substantial equality of population among the various districts, or districts of as nearly equal population as is practicable and (b) that á State “may provide tor .compact districts of contiguous territory” and (c) that there must be no invidious discrimination. These are the only standards specifically promulgated by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court itself stated in Reynolds v. Sims (page 578) that these four standards were “only a few rather general considerations which appear to us to be relevant.” I am convinced (a) that these four standards are entirely insufficient -guideposts for a fair, just and clearly defined Constitutional plan of districting, and (b) that as nearly equal in-population as is practicable should be more definitely and precisely defined, and (c) that additional clear and necessary- guideposts must be erected. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S., supra, Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter (page 267); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S., supra, Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan (page 621). Moreover, the aforesaid four standards erected by the Supreme Court did not expressly preclude or prohibit a consideration of many other very important factors and the criteria some of which will be hereinafter discussed.
This Court, carrying out and implementing the aforesaid decisions, relevantly said in Butcher v. Bloom, *358415 Pa., supra (page 463) : “We hold, therefore, that Article II, §16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that senatorial reapportionment legislation must maintain the integrity of counties and other political subdivisions, insofar as possible., and must provide for compact districts of contiguous territory., subject always to the overriding objective and mandate that such districts shall be ‘as- nearly equal in population as may be.’ We must emphasize that, if necessary, any political subdivision or subdivisions may be divided or combined in the formation of districts where the population principle cannot otherwise be satisfied. . .”
The aforesaid new and novel interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by a majority of the Supreme Court is an abrupt and massive break with the past decisions of that Court, and, I am convinced, is contrary to the history and traditions of our Country and of nearly every State, and with due respect, finds no support in the language of the Constitution. The Court in effect completely changes the long and well established elective system of nearly all of our State Governments and of the House of Representatives, as well as the basic structure, doctrine and philosophy of our Republican* form of Government.
Furthermore, it can be fairly said that no decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the last hundred years has ever disturbed, dismayed and confused Congressmen, Legislators, Governors, Judges, lawyers and ordinary citizens as has the novel and *359revolutionary decision in the Reynolds group of cases. It seems to have been forgotten that the form and scheme of Government of the United States which at various times has been the admiration of the civilized world, was created and based upon the foundation rock of three separate, independent, yet intertwined, coordinate co-equal branches of Government, with its inherent fundamental concept and philosophy of checks and balances.
My views are not groundless and my fears are not imaginary. They are supported by public expressions in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the press, magazines and news media throughout our Country, and most importantly by a number of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
A few examples will suffice:
In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S., supra, Mr. Justice Hablan, dissenting, said (pp. 20, 21, 42) : “I had not expected to witness the day when the Supreme Court of the United States would render a decision which casts grave doubt on the constitutionality of the composition of the House of Representatives. It is not an exaggeration to say that such is the effect of today’s decision. The Court’s holding that the Constitution requires States to select Representatives either by elections at large or by elections in districts composed ‘as nearly as is practicable’ of equal population places in jeopardy the seats of almost all the members of the present House of Representatives.
“. . . Thus, today’s decision impugns the validity of the election of 398 Representatives from 37 States, leaving a ‘constitutional’ House of 37 members now sitting.
The constitutional right which the Court-creates is manufactured out of whole cloth.”
In his dissenting Opinion in Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S., supra, Mr. Justice Stewart (with whom Mr. Justice Clark joined) termed the Court’s *360decision “woefully wrong” and said (pp. 745-748, 750-751) : “. . . It has been unanswerably demonstrated before now that this ‘was not the colonial system, it.was not the system chosen for the national government ~by the Constitution, it was not the system exclusively or even predominantly practiced by the States at the' time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not predominantly practiced by the States today.’ Secondly, says the Court, unless legislative districts are equal in population, voters in the more populous districts will suffer a ‘debasement’ amounting to a constitutional injury. As the Court explains it, ‘To the extent that a citizen’s right to vote is debased, he is that- much-less a citizen.’ . We are not told how or why the vote of a person in a more populated legislative district is ‘debased,’ or how or why he is less a citizen, nor is the proposition self-evident. I find it impossible to understand how or why a voter in California, for instance, either feels or is less a citizen than a voter in Nevada, simply because, despite their population disparities, each of those States is represented by two United States Senators.
“To put the matter plainly, there is nothing in all the history of this Court’s decisions which supports this constitutional rule. The Court’s draconian pronouncement, which malees unconstitutional the legislatures of most' of the 50 States, finds no support in the words of the Constitution, in any prior decision of. this Court, or in the .115-year political history of our Federal Union. . . . The rule announced today is at odds with long-established principles of constitutional adjudication under the Equal Protection Clause, and it stifles values of local individuality and initiative vital to the character of the Federal Union which it was the genius of our Constitution to create.
“What the Court has done is to convert a particular political philosophy into a constitutional rule, bind*361ing upon each of the 50 States, from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to Texas, without regard and without respect for-. the many individualized and differentiated characteristics of .each State, characteristics, stemming from-each State’s distinct history, distinct geography, distinct distribution of population, and distinct political heritage. .....
- “The Court today .declines to give any recognition to these considerations and countless others, tangible and intangible, in holding unconstitutional the particula.r systems; of legislative apportionment which these States have chosen. Instead, the Court says that the requirements of the Equal Protection. Clause can be met in any State only by the uncritical, simplistic, and heavy-handed application of sixth-grade arithmetic.
“. .. . And the further fact is that throughout < ur history the apportionments of State Legislatures have reflected, the strongly felt American tradition that the public interest is composed of many diverse interests, and that in the long run it can better be expressed by a medley of component voices than by the majority’s monolithic command. What constitutes a rational plan reasonably designed to achieve this objective [he., the important goal of ensuring a fair, effective, and balanced representation of the regional, social, and economic- interests within a State] will vary from State to State, since each State is unique, in terms of topography, geography, demography, history, heterogeneity and concentration of population, variety of social and economic interests, and in the operation and interrelation of its political institutions.-. . .”
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S., supra, Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting, said (pp. 602-603, 607, 614-615); . Of the 23 loyal States which ratified the Amendment before 1870, five had constitutional provisions for apportionment of at least one house of their respective, legislatures which wholly disregarded the spread of *362population. Ten more liad constitutional provisions which gave primary emphasis to population, but which applied also other principles, such as partial ratios and recognition of political subdivisions, which were intended to favor sparsely settled areas. Gan it be seriously contended that the legislatures of these States, almost two-thirds of those concerned, would have ratified an amendment which might render their own States’ constitutions unconstitutional?”
“It is incredible that' Congress would have exacted ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment as the price of readmission, would have studied the-State Constitutions for compliance with the-Amendment, and would then have disregarded- violations of it.”
“. . . In my judgment, today’s decisions are refuted by the language of the Amendment which they construe and by the inference fairly to be drawn from subsequently enacted Amendments. They are unequivocally refuted by history' and by consistent theory and practice from the time of the' adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until today.”
Notwithstanding my aforesaid views and convictions, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is Constitutionally bound to obey and, whenever necessary, carry out or implement the decisions of the Supreme Court of the -United States. Accordingly, we mandated the Legislature of Pennsylvania to reapportion or redistrict (within a year)' the Legislative and Senatorial Districts of our State, in accordance with the standards promulgated by the "Supreme Court of the United States. See Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa., supra. Districting and redistrictiñg aré primarily the duty, obligation and responsibility-of the Legislature. Nevertheless; in over a-year’s ti-niethe Legislature failed to carry out -this Court’s reapportionmenf mandate, although, if its members hád been able to put aside partisan politics and personal ámbitions, they would have been es*363pecially qualified for this task. They had a composite knowledge and the particular and essentially important qualifications, because of their widespread representation (209 Representatives and 50 Senators), and their personal knowledge of the various and varied and the common or diverse interests of virtually every community in every part of the State. The result of this failure was that the very unpleasant duty, of reapportioning the Legislative and Senatorial Districts of Pennsylvania fell upon the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
This was an exceptionally difficult task for our Court because it involved not merely the solution of Constitutional and legal questions — a field .with which we are familiar — but the delineating of 200 or more different political Representative districts and 50 Senatorial districts, with only the four above mentioned Constitutional standards to guide us. The political subdivisions or districts of our State, are inextricably intermixed with political, social, economic, traditional, homogenous, county and regional factors, plus, many other important varied and diverse interests with the. details of which a Court is not and. cannot be familiar. Moreover, although 30 different redistricting plans* were submitted to this Court, they did not furnish. adequate facts or information which would enable us to wisely redistrict the entire State if we take into consideration not merely population, compactness and contiguity, but also the many important additional factors, hereinbefore and hereinafter mentioned.
It would be relatively easy to take a paper and pen and, applying “only the uncritical, simplistic and heavy-handed application of sixth grade arithmetic,”** draw *364a'dozen-different and Constitutionally valid-plans dividing the State into Senatorial and Legislative Districts which would be (a) contiguous, (b) compact and (c).“as nearly equal in population as is practicable,” and (d) with no invidious discrimination. However, I am convinced that in addition to these four basic Constitutional standards prescribed by' the Supreme Court of the. United States, every fair and wise districting or redis'tricting plan would have to include a consideration of the many varied interests of each district. These would include. such factors as homogeneous groups, their . commercial, industrial, economic, social, cultural, spiritual, -county, and regional interests, their interests . arising from- their national origin, their special wants and needs,-their different historical and political heritage; -their language differences, and their different customs, traditions and way of life. Moreover, I.believe, that large minority groups are entitled to-representation, whenever reasonably possible. In some of .these fields, I repeat, we do not have sufficient information,- nor have these very important facts and criteria, been adequately furnished to us by anyone, nor are we, within the' short time available, in a position to: obtain them. For example, it is a matter of common knowledge that a mountain or a river or a large body of water, and sometimes a modern highway, often so separates neighboring people that many or most of the.interests, customs, traditions and way of life of the people on one side thereof are very different from those of. the people on the other side. An outstanding example of . fundamental differences would be that of Philadelphians on the one hand and, on the other hand, the Amish, the Mennouites, the Dunkards, and other wonderful people often popularly called the plain people. The language, the interests, the religious beliefs, the customs, traditions and way of life of the plain people — indeed, their very different and distinctive *365dress — are so different from those of Philadelphians that to combine them in one district, if these-communities were compact and contiguous, would-be absolutely ridiculous. ..".y;
For these reasons, I cannot agree fully with’-any of the 30 different plans submitted to this Court, nor iri tolo with the plans formulated and the views' set forth in the' majority Opinion, or in the Opinion by Justice Musmanno. Furthermore, I strongly’disagree with the views expressed by Justice Eagen. Perhaps the biggest difference between the majority and myself is that since all or nearly all the Senators have been Unconstitutionally elected, I believe- that all 50 should be Constitutionally elected in the general election next November from the new Senatorial Districts for a term of, four, years.* If the newly. elected .Legislature wishes to create staggered Senatorial terms they may validly do so.
Since I cannot persuade a majority of this Court, to. adopt my aforesaid views and my concept of our Government,** this creates a frustrating situation. Even *366though my views and recommendations cannot prevail, this Court would be derelict in its duty if we failed, as. the Legislature failed, to formulate a redistricting plan for Pennsylvania. Everyone knows that no redistricting plan can satisfy everybody. Since any redistricting plan requires the approval of a majority of this Court, and since I believe that the plans set forth in the majority Opinion are Constitutional and are better than any other plan which has been submitted, I am forced to join in the Reapportionment and Redistricting plans set forth in the majority Per Curiam Opinion.
Italics throughout, ours.
Popularly miscalled “Democratic” or “Democracy.” The United States has a Constitutionally guaranteed Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, §4) with a democratic way of life. I also agree with the dissenting Justice who said that the realistic effect of the Court’s decisions was to raise the practical question of whether there is or ever was any reason, use or necessity for a bicameral Legislature, which every State (except Nebraska) has and has had since their Statehood.
We note, in passing, that the plan for redistricting the Senate, which was passed by the Senate, was Constitutionally defective.
Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Clark in Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S., supra, page 750.
Art. II, §3 of the Constitution provides: “Senators shall be-elected for the term of four years and Representatives for-the' term-of two years.” Furthermore, it seems very unfair .that some' (25) Senators should have to run for election or re-election three times in four years.
At a time when our boys are fighting and dying in Asia, and Washington is proclaiming to the entire..world our inextinguishable desire and intent to give to peoples everywhere- their inalienable right to freely choose the kind of Government • they desire, it is almost incredible that a majority of Congress will not allow- the people of our Country to vote and adopt (through Legislatures or conventions) a Constitutional amendment to eradicate or change the above mentioned recent decisions of the Supreme Court. Such, an amendment (presently popularly known as the Dirksen Amendment) would enable the people of each State .and the people- of our entire Country to choose the kind of representative Government-they desire' in their particular State and in Congress. -They .co.uld thereby restore the kind of Government- which the people of each *366State as well as of our entire Country liave enjoyed ever since we became the United States of America — a representative Government which has enabled us in a relatively short period of time to become the greatest nation in the world.