Connor v. Johnson 8212

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; THE CHIEF JUSTICE; BLACK
Citation29 L.Ed.2d 268,402 U.S. 690,91 S.Ct. 1760
Decision Date03 June 1971
PartiesPeggy J. CONNOR, Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, et al. v. Paul B. JOHNSON et al. No. —-

402 U.S. 690
91 S.Ct. 1760
29 L.Ed.2d 268
Peggy J. CONNOR, Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, et al.

v.

Paul B. JOHNSON et al.

No. —-.
June 3, 1971.
Dissenting Opinion June 4, 1971.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1971.

See 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2220.

PER CURIAM.

On May 14, 1971, a three-judge District Court, convened in the Southern District of Mississippi, invalidated the Mississippi Legislature's latest reapportionment statute as allowing impermissibly large variations among House and Senate districts. The parties were requested by the court to submit suggested plans, and the applicants did so on May 17. All four plans suggested by applicants utilized single-member districts ex-

Page 691

clusively in Hinds County. The following day, May 18, 330 F.Supp. 506, the court issued its own plan, which included single- and multi-member districts in each House; Hinds County was constituted as a multi-member district electing five senators and 12 representatives. The court expressed some reluctance over use of multi-member districts in counties electing four or more senators or representatives, saying: '(I)t would be ideal if (such counties) could be divided into districts, for the election of one member (from) the district.' However, in view of the June 4, 1971, deadline for filing notices of candidacy, the court concluded that: '(W)ith the time left available it is a matter of sheer impossibility to obtain dependable data, population figures, boundary locations, etc. so as fairly and correctly to divide these counties into districts for the election of single members of the Senate or this House in time for the elections of 1971.' The court promised to appoint a special master in January 1972 to investigate the possibility of single-member districts for the general elections of 1975 and 1979.

Applicants moved the District Court to stay its order. The motion was denied on May 24. Applicants have now applied to this Court for a stay of the District Court's order and for an extension of the June 4 filing deadline until the District Court shall have provided single-member districts in Hinds County, or until the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia approves the District Court's apportionment plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. V).

Insofar as applicants ask relief under the Voting Rights Act the motion for stay is denied. A decree of the United States District Court is not within reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, other reasons lead us to grant the motion to the extent indicated below.

Page 692

In failing to devise single-member districts, the court was under the belief that insufficient time remained until June 4, the deadline for the filing of notices of candidacy. Yet at that time June 4 was 17 days away and, according to an uncontradicted statement in the brief supporting this motion, the applicants were able to formulate and offer to the court four single-member district plans for Hinds County in the space of three days. Also according to uncontradicted statements, these plans were based on data which included county maps showing existing political subdivisions, the supervisory districts used by the Census Bureau for the taking of the 1970 census, official 1970 Census Bureau...

To continue reading

Request your trial
125 practice notes
  • Egan v. Hammond, No. 1711
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • July 21, 1972
    ...1972 primary and general elections for the State Legislature, together with the dates that such elections will be held. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 6. A full opinion discussing and determining the issues which were raised in the petition and cross-petition......
  • Brown v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 75-298-P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • December 13, 1976
    ...apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter." Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 692, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1762, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). The Court reaffirmed this twice in the last term. East Carroll Parish School Board, and Wallace......
  • Yelverton v. Driggers, Civ. A. No. 1305-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • February 7, 1974
    ...a reapportionment plan, "single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter." Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 692, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1762, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). Even federal courts, however, are free to adopt multi-member district plans in certain high......
  • Harper v. Levi, Nos. 73-1766
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 24, 1975
    ...this opinion was the presiding judge in Twiggs v. West, supra note 25. 159 Holt v. City of Richmond, supra note 154, 459 F.2d at 1100. 160 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). 161 The Twiggs court did approve the reapportionment plan delineated in Act 1205, but it did not mak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
124 cases
  • Egan v. Hammond, No. 1711
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • July 21, 1972
    ...1972 primary and general elections for the State Legislature, together with the dates that such elections will be held. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 6. A full opinion discussing and determining the issues which were raised in the petition and cross-petition......
  • Brown v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 75-298-P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • December 13, 1976
    ...apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter." Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 692, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1762, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). The Court reaffirmed this twice in the last term. East Carroll Parish School Board, and Wallace......
  • Yelverton v. Driggers, Civ. A. No. 1305-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • February 7, 1974
    ...a reapportionment plan, "single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter." Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 692, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1762, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). Even federal courts, however, are free to adopt multi-member district plans in certain high......
  • Harper v. Levi, Nos. 73-1766
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 24, 1975
    ...this opinion was the presiding judge in Twiggs v. West, supra note 25. 159 Holt v. City of Richmond, supra note 154, 459 F.2d at 1100. 160 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). 161 The Twiggs court did approve the reapportionment plan delineated in Act 1205, but it did not mak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Do Multimember Districts Lead to Free‐Riding?
    • United States
    • Legislative Studies Quarterly Nbr. 32-4, November 2007
    • November 1, 2007
    ...“Incumbency and theProbability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Politics 62:671–700.Connor v. Johnson. 1971. 402 U.S. 690.Cooper, Christopher A., and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. 2006. “Institutions and Repre-sentational Roles in U.S. State Legislatures.” State Polit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT