Smith v. Clark
| Decision Date | 19 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 3:01-CV-855WS.,CIV.A. 3:01-CV-855WS. |
| Citation | 189 F.Supp.2d 529 |
| Parties | John Robert SMITH, Shirley Hall, and Gene Walker plaintiffs v. Eric CLARK, Secretary of State of Mississippi; Mike Moore, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi; Ronnie Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi; Mississippi Republican Executive Committee; and Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee Defendants Beatrice Branch; Rims Barber; L.C. Dorsey; David Rule; James Woodard; Joseph P. Hudson; and Robert Norvel Intervenors |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Arthur F. Jernigan, Jr., Watson & Jernigan, P.A., Jackson, for John Robert Smith, Shirley Hall, Gene Walker, plaintiffs.
T. Hunt Cole, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Michael B. Wallace, Phelps Dunbar, John G. Jones, Jones & Funderburg, Herbert Lee, Jr., Lee & Associates, Robert B. McDuff, Robert B. McDuff, Attorney, Jackson, for Eric Clark, Secretary of State of Mississippi, Mike Moore, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Ronnie Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi, the Mississippi Republican Party Executive Committee, Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, defendants.
OPINION
This opinion follows the trial in this matter on January 28 and 29, 2002, and our order of February 4, 2002, which attached the proposed congressional redistricting plan that we had drafted. We stated in that order that we proposed to implement that plan, absent timely pre-clearance by the Department of Justice of the plan adopted by the Hinds County Chancery Court. We directed the parties to show cause why this court's plan failed to meet constitutional and federal standards and should not be implemented. The Intervenors filed certain objections. For the reasons that follow, we overrule the Intervenors' objections to this court's plan. Furthermore, we make clear that we will enjoin the implementation of the Chancery Court plan for the 2002 congressional elections, and order that the elections in 2002 be conducted in accordance with this court's plan of February 4, 2002, if the Chancery Court plan has not been precleared on or before the close of business on February 25, 2002.1
The facts and procedural history are set out in our order of January 15, 2002. In that order, we concluded that it was necessary for us to assert our jurisdiction in order to ensure that an enforceable congressional redistricting plan was in place prior to the March 1, 2002 deadline for candidates to qualify for the 2002 congressional elections, because it appeared uncertain whether the State authorities would have a redistricting plan in place prior to that deadline.
On January 16, we conducted a scheduling conference. Thereafter, we entered a scheduling order allowing the parties an opportunity to conduct discovery and setting the matter for trial on January 28 and 29, 2002. Counsel for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee advised this court that his client adopted the position taken by the Intervenors. The Mississippi Republican Executive Committee was aligned with the Plaintiffs.
At trial, the Plaintiffs presented nine plans and called seven witnesses. The Intervenors presented two plans and called three witnesses. In addition, the record of the proceedings conducted in the Chancery Court, including the trial transcript and exhibits, was made a part of the record in this federal proceeding.
The Intervenors submitted a post-trial brief in which they contended that, even if the plan adopted by the Chancery Court is not precleared prior to the March 1 qualifying deadline, we nevertheless must defer to state policy and use the state court plan as a temporary plan for the 2002 congressional elections. Alternatively, the Intervenors urged us to utilize Branch Plan 2B, described infra, as an interim court-ordered plan. In the further alternative, the Intervenors urged us to postpone the qualifying deadline to await a preclearance decision. Finally, the Intervenors argued that, if this court drew its own plan, it should attempt to draw the third district with a higher percentage of black voting age population than that reflected in the plans submitted by the Plaintiffs.
After considering these arguments of counsel and the evidence presented at trial, we drafted our own plan. We concluded that none of the plans submitted by the parties fully comported with the objectives and criteria that should be incorporated in a judicially approved redistricting plan. We considered that the Intervenors had offered little evidence that their plans address any of the factors that must be considered by a federal court in congressional redistricting. In reviewing the plans offered by the Intervenors, we took into account that they were admittedly drawn with partisan political objectives in mind, and, as a result, compactness of districts was not a factor. With respect to the plans offered by the Plaintiffs, although the testimony indicated that they had taken into account some of the relevant neutral factors, we found that each of them had various flaws. We concluded that the process would be shortened and simplified by drafting and perfecting our own plan, and that is what we did.
On February 4, we entered an order attaching our plan. Our order stated that we proposed to implement that plan absent the timely preclearance of the state court plan. We directed the parties to show cause by written objections, why this court's redistricting plan, if implemented, would not satisfy all state and federal statutory and constitutional requirements; and to make any other critical comments and suggestions with respect to the plan that the parties deemed appropriate.
On February 14, the Department of Justice requested additional information from State authorities, and advised that a new 60-day period would begin to run upon receipt of the requested information.
We now address the parties' objections and comments regarding our plan, and further explain the factors we considered, and how we applied them, in drafting our plan.
Objections and Comments of the Parties
The Plaintiffs and the Mississippi Republican Executive Committee had no objections as such to our plan. They did, however, comment on our analysis of the plan, requesting an explanation of the legal significance of our decision to consider, as a secondary factor, the effort to include as much as possible of former districts 3 and 4 in the new District 3. We have done so in the analysis of the factors we considered, and how we applied them, infra.
The Plaintiffs and the Mississippi Republican Executive Committee also commented that our February 4 order did not explain what we meant by "the timely preclearance of the redistricting plan adopted by the State Chancery Court."
The Plaintiffs also assert that the plans they submitted satisfy all constitutional and statutory criteria and can be defended on neutral redistricting principles. The Plaintiffs presented four basic plans, as well as modified versions of each of them. After studying each of the Plaintiffs' plans and after considering all neutral criteria for drafting congressional redistricting plans, we found various flaws in each, including: the fragmentation of communities of interest, especially the community of interest represented by southwest Mississippi; compactness concerns; retrogression concerns; unnecessary outdistricting of one of the incumbents; unnecessary division of municipalities outside the City of Jackson; and unnecessary splits in voting precincts.
We now turn to address the objections of the Intervenors.
The Intervenors object to our plan on many grounds, most of which were raised prior to trial and in their post-trial brief. We will address each of those objections separately, in the order in which they were presented to us.
The Intervenors contend that the plan adopted by the Chancery Court reflects state policy, and that we should defer to that plan. They make this argument even though the Chancery Court plan is not effective as law because it has not been precleared. In support, the Intervenors rely on Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982); Terrazas v. Clements, 537 F.Supp. 514 (N.D.Tex.1982); Burton v. Hobbie, 543 F.Supp. 235 (M.D.Ala.), aff'd, 459 U.S. 961, 103 S.Ct. 286, 74 L.Ed.2d 272 (1982); and Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F.Supp. 1029, 1034 (M.D.Ala.1983). In Upham, the Supreme Court stated:
[W]henever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution, we hold that a district court should similarly honor state policies in the context of congressional reapportionment. In fashioning a reapportionment plan or in choosing among plans, a district court should not pre-empt the legislative task nor intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.
Id. at 41-42, 102 S.Ct. 1518 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 797, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973) (). At issue in Upham was a congressional redistricting plan that had been enacted by a state legislature. Although the United States Attorney General had objected to only part of that plan, the three-judge federal court disregarded not only the part of the plan to which the Attorney General had objected, but also parts of the plan to which no objection had been lodged. The Supreme Court held that a district court has no authority to disregard those portions of a state plan which have been approved by the Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia v. Ashcroft
... ... The chairman, vice-chairman and secretary of the House Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Committee were Representatives Tommy Smith, Jay Shaw and Carl Von Epps, respectively. Id. ¶ 8. During the 2001-02 session of the General Assembly, the House Reapportionment Committee has 29 ... Id. A Clark University study found Meyer von Bremen to be supportive of minority issues. Pl.Ex. 23 at 9-10. However, both experts for the plaintiff and the ... ...
-
Branch v. Smith
...Monday, February 25, 2002," then the District Court's plan would fix the Mississippi congressional districts for the 2002 elections. 189 F. Supp. 2d 529, 548. February 25th came and went with no action by DOJ. On February 26, the District Court enjoined the State from using the Chancery Cou......
-
BRANCH ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL.
...Monday, February 25, 2002," then the District Court's plan would fix the Mississippi congressional districts for the 2002 elections. 189 F. Supp. 2d 529, 548. February 25th came and went with no action by DOJ. On February 26, the District Court enjoined the State from using the Chancery Cou......
-
Giles v. Ashcroft
...late in 2001, seeking to enjoin the state court plan and asking the federal court to adopt a redistricting plan for the state. Smith v. Clark. Giles sought to intervene in the Smith case on January 9, 2002, but his motion was denied the next day. On February 19, 2002, the three-judge court ......