Two weeks ago the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee issued a statement denouncing as aggression United States action in Vietnam. It expressed sympathy for those "unwilling to respond to a military draft which would compel them to contribute their lives . . . in the name of the 'freedom' we find so false in this country." When asked by newsmen if he supported the statement, Julian Bond, 26-year-old press secretary for SNCC, said he did. In response to further questioning Bond said that he admired the courage of those who burn their draft cards, but that he would not burn his.

On June 16, 1965, Julian Bond was elected from the 136th Legislative district (representing a section of Atlanta) to the Georgia House. When the House met January 10, 1966, it voted 184 to 12 to bar Bond from his seat in the legislature. The House held him guilty of "disorderly conduct" because of what they referred to as his advocacy of violating the draft law and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Since then the action of the Georgia legislators has been defended by Georgia Governor Carl Sanders and vehemently protested by many, including members of SNCC, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and a number of Republican and Democratic congressmen from throughout the country. On January 28, a three-judge panel named by Federal Circuit Court Judge Elbert P. Tuttle will hear the petition filed by Bond's attorneys seeking an injunction forcing the Legislature to seat him.

The Georgia State constitution provides that either house of the Legislature can, by a two-thirds vote, expel a sitting member for misconduct. Bond's court action raises two questions. Given the doctrine of separation of powers, does the court have the power to intervene in the internal affairs of the Georgia legislature? And, if the court does assume jurisdiction, should it order the House to seat Bond? We feel that the answer to both questions is yes.

In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Federal Courts can review the make-up of state-legislatures to see that they are properly representative. This, the Court held, did not breach the separation-of-powers doctrine because state legislatures and Federal courts are not coordinate branches of government. After continuing pressure by the Court to enforce this ruling, in April of last year, Georgia finally reapportioned its Lower House. Prior to reapportioned its Lower House. Prior to reapportionment Fulton County, which includes the heart of the Atlanta metropolitan area, held only three out of 205 seats, though some 14 per cent of the state population resided in the County. Now it has 24 representatives. Bond was elected in a special election ordered by a Federal Court as a part of the reapportionment.

For two reasons, the Bond incident brings into serious question the representative-ness of the Georgia House. First, no legislature is representative if it abridges the rights of free speech of any of its members. Second, refusing to seat a duly elected member abridges the voting right, and the right to representation, of the member's constituents. Two of Bond's constituents, Dr. Martin Luther King and Mrs. Arel Keyes, have joined in sponsoring the petition on these grounds.

Having assumed jurisdiction, the Court must then address itself to the merits of the case. Bond alleges he has been deprived of his right of free speech assured by the 1st Amendment. The suit argues: "Had a member of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society or the White Citizens Council spoken against Federal policy he would have been cheered." Punishing Bond for exercising his right to speak out on U.S. foreign policy or to admire the courage of anyone for any reason does indeed violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The petition goes on to test the alleged denial of the 5th, 6th, and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The 5th and 6th Amendments guarantee the right to be indicted by a grand jury and the right of being tried by an impartial jury. The 13th, 14th and 15th, the suit claims, make it a violation of the Constitution to "pin a badge of inferiority" on Bond as a Negro.

When questioned by a reporter, a man who lives in the 136th said he did not agree with Bond on the Vietnam issue, but that he felt the Constitution guaranteed every citizen, and every legislator the right to express his opinion openly. If the Court does not consider the Bond case and order the Legislature to seat Bond, his constituent will have been deprived of his right to equal representation.