Taylor v. Monroe County Board of Supervisors
| Citation | 394 F.2d 333 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 25179.,25179. |
| Parties | McWhirter TAYLOR, Appellant, v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Richard B. Booth, Aberdeen, Miss., for appellant.
Fred B. Smith, Ripley, Miss., Jack N. Thomas, Amory, Miss., for appellees.
Before GEWIN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
According to the 1960 Census of the United States the population of the five districts for the election of Supervisors in Monroe County, Mississippi, was as follows: District One, 10,870; District Two, 2,813; District Three, 3,457; 457; District Four, 11,257; District Five, 5,556. Obviously, this falls far short of meeting the standards prescribed by Avery v. Midland County, Texas, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968). This leaves to the governing authorities of the County two options. They may reapportion the five districts so as to leave each of them with a population substantially equal to that of the others, or they may allow a supervisor to be chosen from each of the districts as presently constituted but by elections in which the voters of the entire county will participate, Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967), cited with approval in Avery v. Midland County, Texas, supra.
The suit which gave rise to this appeal was filed on June 23, 1967. Paragraph V of the Complaint expressly declined to pray for redistricting the first option because, it was alleged, . It was accordingly prayed, in addition to a prayer for general relief, that the Board of Supervisors be mandatorily enjoined to provide for an "at large" election of the members of the Board the second option and that the county election commissioners and the County Democratic Executive Committee should provide for party primaries and a general election accordingly.
The District Judge denied a preliminary injunction, stating, among...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirksey v. Board of Sup'rs of Hinds County, Miss.
...U.S. at 484, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d at 53; Turner v. McKeithen, 490 F.2d 191, 196 n.23 (CA5, 1973); cf. Taylor v. Monroe County Board of Supervisors, 394 F.2d 333 (CA5, 1968). State's own plans." 420 U.S. at 26, 95 S.Ct. at 765, 42 L.Ed.2d at 784. Finally, the district court expressed do......
-
Taylor v. Monroe County Board of Supervisors
...participate, Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct., 1554, 18 L.Ed. 656 (1967), cited with approval in Avery v. Midland * * *." 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F.2d 333. The court remanded the case "for further proceedings expeditiously conducted consistently with the holdings of the Supreme Court and for......
-
Sheffield v. Itawamba County Board of Supervisors, 30452.
...one-vote constitutional command. Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967); Taylor v. Monroe County Bd. of Supervisors, 394 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1968); Goldblatt v. City of Dallas, 414 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. Although the operation of the Mississippi statute authorizing at......
-
Williams v. Field
... ... the Superior Court of California's San Luis Obispo County for a writ of habeas corpus. That court denied the petition ... ...