MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE v. BROOKS
469 U.S. 1002

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE v. BROOKS , 469 U.S. 1002 (1984)

469 U.S. 1002

MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
v.
Owen H. BROOKS et al
No. 83-1722

Owen H. BROOKS et al.
v.
William A. ALLAIN, Governor of Mississippi, et al
No. 83-1865

William A. ALLAIN et al.
v.
Owen H. BROOKS et al
No. 83-2053

Supreme Court of the United States

November 13, 1984

The judgment is affirmed.

Justice STEVENS, concurring.

Although I agree that a summary affirmance of the judgment of the District Court is entirely appropriate in these cases, what has been written in dissent prompts me to make two important points.

First, there is little, if any, resemblance between the argument advanced in the dissenting opinion and the specific questions presented in the parties' jurisdictional statements. This Court has determined that summary affirmances "reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176, 97 S. Ct. 2238, 2240 (1977). The only questions presented

Page 469 U.S. 1002 , 1003

in the jurisdictional statement that the Mississippi Republican Executive Committee filed in case No. 83-1722 read as follows:

    "1. Whether Section 5 and Section 2 as amended apply to redistricting decisions.

    "2. Whether the amendment to Section 2 or any other portion of the Voting Rights Amendments of 1982 has any bearing upon litigation under Section 5.

    "3. Whether Section 2 as amended prohibits only those electoral schemes intentionally designed or maintained to discriminate on the basis of race.

    "4. Whether Section 2, if construed to prohibit anything other than intentional discrimination on the basis of race in registration and voting, exceeds the power vested in Congress by the Fifteenth Amendment." Juris. Statement in No. 83-1722, p. i.1

Second, the dissent does not fairly characterize the opinion of the District Court. That opinion does not "in effect" construe the recent amendment to 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 96 Stat. 134, 42 U.S.C . 1973, as entitling "minority plaintiffs, in a State where there exist present effects from past discrimination, to have a state redistricting plan invalidated if it has failed to provide at least one district in which the 'minority' is a majority of the eligible voters." Post, at 1005 . The dissent buttresses this incorrect impression by attributing the following statement to the District Court:

    "The District Court felt it was obligated, under the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, to redraw the district map so that the redefined Second District would have a 'clear black voting age population majority of 52.83 percent.' " Post, at 1008. [469 U.S. 1002 , 1004]


    Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.