Connor v. Finch, Civ. A. No. 3830(A).

• Decision Date: 17 January 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3830(A).
• Citation: 422 F. Supp. 1014
• Parties: Peggy H. CONNOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cliff FINCH et al., Defendants, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

422 F. Supp. 1014

Peggy H. CONNOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cliff FINCH et al., Defendants, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor.

Civ. A. No. 3830(A).

United States District Court, S. D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

November 12, 1976.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted January 17, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Frank R. Parker and John L. Maxey, II, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Gerald W. Jones and Michael D. Johnson, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., of Mississippi, William A. Allain and Giles W. Bryant, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for the defendants.

Before COLEMAN, Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL and COX, District Judges.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted January 17, 1977. See 97 S.Ct. 782.

PER CURIAM:

This is the third, and the last, of a series of decrees reapportioning the Mississippi Legislature.¹

The first decree reapportioned the State Senate from multiple member to single member districts, August 24, 1976, 419 F.Supp. 1072 (S.D.Miss., 1976).

The second decree reapportioned the House of Representatives from multiple member to single member districts, September 8, 1976, 419 F.Supp. 1089 (S.D.Miss., 1976).

The private plaintiffs and the Department of Justice have filed objections. To improve upon discrepancies involving contiguity and population, the reapportionment of the House of Representatives is hereby amended in the following respects, and to that extent only:

                District  Geographical        Population      Variance
                           Description
                   8      Coahoma County
                          The Precincts
                          of Coahoma
                          Lula, Lyon
                          and Jonestown
                          Tunica County
                          Beats 1, 2, 3
                          and 4; also
                          Armory Precinct       16,813            -7.5
                  15      Coahoma County:
                          Beat 2 and all
                          Clarksdale
                          Precincts in
                          Beats 1 and 3         16,677            -8.2
                  16      Coahoma County:
                          Beat 4, Beat 5,
                          and Mattson
                          Precinct              17,465            -3.9
                  53      Warren County:
                          The Precincts
                          of Yokena, Redbone,
                          Goodrow,
                          Tingle, Beechwood,
                          Culkin,
                          Kings, St.
                          Aloyisuis, and
                          American Legion
                          (Blackburn)           16,928            -6.8
                  54      Warren County:
                          The Precincts of
                          Jett, Fire Station
                          #7, and Jonestown     16,492            -9.2
                (The reapportionment of Warren County by Beats is on
                appeal to the Supreme Court. Precinct structure must
                conform to Beat structure.)
                  55      Warren County:
                          The Precincts of
                          Bovina, Oak Ridge,
                          Redwood, Walters,
                          Brunswick, Cedar
                          Grove, Auditorium
                          and Central Fire
                          Station
                          Yazoo County:
                          The Precincts of
                          Dover, East
                          Bentonia, West
                          Bentonia, Phoenix,
                          Mechanicsburg,
                          Satartia, Fugate,
                          Deasonville, and
                          Valley                  17,082        -6.0
                
                

                  60          Kemper County
                              Lauderdale County:
                              All Precincts in
                              Beats 1 and 2 outside
                              the City of
                              Meridian; the
                              Precincts of
                              Obadiah and
                              Shucktown in Beat
                              3                           18,932          +4.2
                  78          Lauderdale County:
                              Meridian City
                              Precincts 1, 2,
                              3, 7 and 8, and
                              the County Precincts
                              of School Gap
                              and Nellieburg in
                              Beat 3                      19,751          +8.7
                  80          Lauderdale County:
                              All Precincts in
                              Beat 3 outside the
                              City of Meridian
                              except Obadiah,
                              Shucktown, School
                              Gap and Nellieburg;
                              All Precincts in
                              Beat 4 except Meridian
                              Precinct No. 13;
                              All Precincts in
                              Beat 5 outside the
                              City of Meridian
                              except East Bonita          19,371          +6.6
                  98          Amite County:
                              Beats 4 and 5
                              Pike County:
                              Beats 4 and 5               17,995          -1.0
                  99          Pike County:
                              Beats 1, 2 and 3            19,243          +6.02
                

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

The one remaining substantial issue in this case is whether we should require special elections in any of the newly created legislative districts. The 1975 elections were held pursuant to a temporary plan devised by this Court, from which no party appealed or sought a stay.

On the entire record we have already held that an attempted reapportionment enacted by the Mississippi Legislature in 1975 was not unconstitutional, Connor v. Waller, 396 F.Supp. 1308 (S.D., Miss.), reversed on other grounds, 421 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 2003, 44 L.Ed.2d 486 (1975). The exhaustive analysis of the 1975 legislative act reported at 396 F.Supp., 1308-1341, is made a part of this opinion by reference. Suffice it to say that our 1975 court plan proceeded to tighten the legislatively enacted reapportionment. We remain of the view, then expressed, that the temporary plan comported with all pertinent Constitutional standards.

Consequently, we conclude that the only available thesis for ordering special elections in any of the newly formulated legislative districts would be where required to remedy any impermissible dilution of black voting strength in the temporary plan when compared with the permanent plan established for the 1979 elections.

The subject has its difficulties. See "Minority Challenges to At-Large Elections: The Dilution Problem", 10 Georgia Law Review 353 (1976).

The Fifth Circuit has written copiously in this field, two of its more recent decisions being McGill v. Gadsden County Commission, 5 Cir. 1976, 535 F.2d 277, and Paige v. Gray, 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 1108. These cases reviewed the jurisprudence, including such cases as East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976).

From these cases it seems clear that (1) those who assert dilution of black voting strength have the burden of proving it; and (2) the significance of past discrimination in dilution cases lies in how it bears on political participation today.

In any event, the standards established in the Fifth Circuit Zimmer decision Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, reaffirmed in Paige, 538 F.2d at 1111, are:

Where a minority can demonstrate lack of access to the process of slating candidates, the unresponsiveness of legislators to their particularized interests, a tenuous state policy underlying the preference for multi-member or at-large districting, or that the existence of past discrimination in general precludes the effective participation in the election system, a strong case is made. Such proof is enhanced by a showing of the existence of large districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot voting provisions and the lack of provision for at-large candidates running from particular geographical subdistricts. The fact of dilution is established upon proof of the existence of an aggregate of these factors. The Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in White v. Regester, supra 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed. 314, demonstrates, however, that all these factors need not be proved in order to obtain relief.

485 F.2d at 1305.

We think the Eighth Circuit correctly defined the principle when it said,

The constitutional touchstone is whether the system is open to full minority participation, not whether proportional representation is in fact achieved.

Dove v. Moore, 8 Cir. 1976, 539 F.2d 1152, 1155.

The electoral process in Mississippi has never known the practice generally described as "slating candidates".

The failure of the plaintiffs to demonstrate any present impact from past discrimination is described at 396 F.Supp. 1325.

Our prior opinion, 396 F.Supp. 1308, 1325, demonstrated the failure of the plaintiffs to show legislative unresponsiveness to the needs of black citizens.

The long established state policy of multimember districts was thoroughly discussed at 396 F.Supp. 1323.

The Attorney General of the United States dispatched numerous federal observers to witness the 1975 elections in Mississippi — first primary, second primary, and general election. At these elections state and local officials are nominated and elected, from constable to governor. We requested a detailed report from the Attorney General as to any observed interference with the right of black citizens to participate in the 1975 elections. Nothing was reported beyond some disputes as to whether an individual was registered to vote in the precinct where he was offering to vote, whether he was registered at all, and such like. We observe that the Department of Justice has initiated no prosecutions for alleged violations of federally guaranteed voting rights in 1975.

Observers were dispatched to Mississippi to observe the 1976 Presidential and Congressional elections. The Attorney General has notified this Court of no interference with the right to vote in 1976. On the other hand, the press has uniformly reported that an unusually heavy turn-out of black voters produced the Presidential victory in Mississippi.

We have no difficulty in holding that at the present day interference with the right of black citizens to cast their ballots is a myth. We reaffirm our prior holding, 396 F.Supp. 1326, "that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has effectually reduced all such racially discriminatory factors to what honestly may be termed an irreducible minimum".

The Senate

There is no justification for ordering special elections in any newly created senatorial district. Every such district with a black population majority was part of a...