Equally importantly, the practical effect of a stay would be that the State of Georgia would conduct the 2004 elections again using unconstitutional apportionment plans. There will not be sufficient time to implement new plans if this action is stayed pending appeal. In fact, the 2002 elections have already been conducted under the unconstitutional plans. If the court permits a stay, thereby allowing the 2004 elections also to proceed pursuant to unconstitutional plans, the plaintiffs and many other citizens in Georgia will have been denied their constitutional rights in
two of the five elections to be conducted under the 2000 census figures. We are mindful of the Supreme Court's advice in
Reynolds that “once a State's legislative apportionment scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan.”
Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585, 84 S.Ct. at 1393. This case does not involve an imminent, impending election where the state's election machinery is already in progress.
See id. The election is more than eight months away. Nor do we impose any unreasonable or embarrassing demands upon the state in order for it to comply with any court decrees.
See id. at 585, 84 S.Ct. at 1394. The General Assembly of Georgia is now in session, and the state has a reasonable opportunity to devise plans of its own. We strongly encourage it to do so. But if it is unable to do so, we have a responsibility to ensure that future elections will not be conducted under unconstitutional plans, a responsibility that cannot be accomplished if a stay is granted. Accordingly, we find that the plaintiffs will be injured if a stay is granted because they will be subject to one more election cycle under unconstitutional plans.