Branch, Beatrice, et al. v. Smith, John R., et al. / Smith, John R., et al. v. Branch, Beatrice, et al. (03/31/2003)

Questions presented: 1. Does Article I, 4 of the U.S. Constitution deprive state courts of general jurisdiction of all power in congressional redistricting cases in the many states where no state statute explicitly speaks of such power?2. If a state court, in the course of adhering to developments in the law, assumes jurisdiction and hears a type of voting rights case it has never heard before, does it thereby "enact or seek to administer [a] voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different form that in force and effect on November 1, 1964," as stated in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 4 U.S.C. 1973c), such that the mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be precleared by the U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court for the District of Columbia under Section 5?3. Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities has "been submitted" to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, may a federal district court nevertheless prevent enforcement and extend the statutory 60-day review period on the basis of the Attorney General's request for additional information if the information sought is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Section 5 retrogression evaluation?4. Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a(5) requires a state whose representation in Congress has been reduced after a census to elect its Representatives "from the State at large"..."[u]ntil a state is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof."

BY SARAH REID, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Mississippi's population growth has not kept pace with the rest of the country, according to the 2000 census. As a result, the state's five congressional districts have been cut back to four and in early 2001 state legislators were saddled with the task of redrawing the districts.

From the start, developing a map was plagued by squabbling between the state senate and house legislative districts. By the first week of October, with a deadline looming, the legislative redistricting panel rejected three proposals.

The Legislative Black Caucus plan failed when members voted along racial lines. Similarly, a second plan called "econ/Denny," presented by Republican Rep. Bill Denny, fell by the wayside along party lines when Republicans supported it and Democrats rejected it. The third offering, which was sponsored by Democrat Rep. Joe Ellzey and called a "compromise plan," failed when house members approved it and senators rejected it.

It may seem surprising that the Democrat-controlled state house and senate could not agree on a plan, but as Ted Booth, staff counsel for the redistricting committee points out, "Party affiliation hasnt meant as much in our state legislature as it has elsewhere. Locally we are more liberal, but our federal reps are more conservative."

In October of 2001, Democratic activists led by Beatrice Branch, former president of Mississippi's NAACP, filed suit in Hinds County, asking the judge to draw new congressional district boundaries for the state if legislators failed to reach a consensus on a plan by Dec. 3.

When a special session of the legislature failed to reach a decision on redistricting by early November, Gov. Ronnie Musgrove called a halt.

In response, Robert McDuff, attorney for the team of Democratic activists, requested hearings to discuss drawing a final map of new congressional districts by Dec. 14.

Hinds County Chancery Court Judge Patricia Wise agreed to McDuff's request and a trial began Dec. 14. After five days of hearings about redistricting standards and the desires and expectations of local officials, Wise approved a plan proposed by Democrats that combines equal parts of the southwestern district represented by Democrat Ronnie Shows and Republican Chip Pickerings east central district.

The newly-authorized redistricting plan was sent immediately to the U.S. Justice Department, which under the Voting Rights Act must okay any additions or changes to voting practices, because of Mississippis history of racial discrimination.

In response to the state courts ruling, Republicans stepped up their efforts to seek an alternative action in early January of 2002 and filed a motion with the U.S. District Court to throw out the state courts decision. A three-judge panel agreed to review the case as they were concerned that the Department of Justice might not be able to approve the Democrat-favored plan before the states March 1 deadline for candidates to file for office.

In first agreeing to review the case, the federal judges said they were concerned primarily about two things. First, they said they wanted to ensure that black voting strength was maintained, in accordance with the Voting Rights Act, but equally important they said was that the involvement of the state court in redistricting procedures may well have been out of line. In a footnote to their ruling on the matter, the federal judges discussed "the wide-ranging implications [of] giving a single chancery judge the power to reapportion the entire state's congressional delegation."

Ultimately they drew a map with different district boundaries, but the panel of judges said they would only enforce this plan if the Justice Department did not approve the state court plan in a timely manner. In their order, the judges said their map will only go into effect "absent the timely preclearance of the redistricting plan adopted by the state Chancery Court."

Within days of the ruling, the Justice Department sent a request for more information on the redistricting plan drawn by the state court judge. One of the questions raised inquired of the authority a chancery judge has to draw new district lines. The timing of this request left just 15 days until the candidates filing deadline, and increased the chances of the federal judges plan being used instead, as it did not require the Justice Departments approval.

On Feb. 20, 2002, a Wednesday, the federal courts three-judge panel gave the Justice Department a deadline of 5 p.m. the following Monday to approve the state-court approved redistricting map. Otherwise the panel said it would take charge of the situation and implement its design.

The Justice Department continued to delay and still questioned whether a lower-court state judge, who was elected by one predominantly Democratic district to serve only Hinds County, should have the authority to draft a Congressional district map for the entire state. The deadline came and went, and the judges of the federal panel imposed a redistricting plan that remains in place to date.

Robert McDuff, the attorney who represents the team supporting the Democrat-backed map, filed an immediate emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Antonin Scalia denied the request. Both sides sought Court intervention.

On June 10, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted both cases for review, noting probable jurisdiction, and consolidated the cases for oral argument.

As the map currently stands however, two congressional incumbents, Chip Pickering and Ronnie Shows will compete to represent the newly consolidated 3rd District in central Mississippi.

On March 31, 2003, a unanimous Court affirmed, holding that the federal court had propertly intervened because the state court's proposed congressional re-districting plan had not been pre-cleared and had no prospect of being pre-cleared in time for the 2002 election.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the lead opinion for the Court.