Connor v. Johnson, 265 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Miss. 1967)
March 27, 1967
v.
Paul B. JOHNSON et al., Defendants.
United States District Court S. D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.
*493 Alvin J. Bronstein, Jackson, Miss., and Peter Marcuse, Waterbury, Conn., for plaintiffs.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. of Mississippi, and Martin R. McLendon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants.
Before COLEMAN, Circuit Judge, and COX and RUSSELL, District Judges.
Judgment Affirmed March 27, 1967. See 87 S. Ct. 1174.
OPINION OF THE COURT
COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.
This Court in this cause has heretofore found it necessary to hold unconstitutional the reapportionment of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the Mississippi Legislature as it was attempted in 1962, see 256 F. Supp. 962, July 22, 1966. By reference, we now incorporate that opinion into (and make it a part of) what is now about to be written and done.
Under the 1962 Reapportionment, as declared unconstitutional, the membership in the House of Representatives varied, either over or under, in excess of ten per cent of the norm in sixty-five of the eighty-two counties. In thirty-eight instances the variation was more than twenty-five per cent. In the forty-nine senatorial districts there were thirty-five which varied in excess of ten per cent. Obviously, under the one man one vote rule, this could not stand.
Rather than undertaking the exercise of equity powers and ourselves reapportioning the House and Senate, we expressly requested the Legislature to do so, 256 F.Supp., at 968.
The Governor called the Legislature into special session on November 9, 1966. Senate Bill No. 1504 was passed by both houses of the Legislature and approved by the Governor on December 1, 1966.
Tables showing in detail the apportionment of the 52 Senate seats and the 122 House seats as attempted by Senate Bill No. 1504 will be attached to and made a part of this opinion as Appendix 1.
An examination of Appendix 1 will show that under this statute twenty-five of the forty-one senatorial districts, established for the election of 52 senators, varied from the norm (41,887) by more than ten per cent, either over or under. There were such glaring variations as 32.55% and 30.02%, as well as ten others in excess of fifteen per cent.
A similar examination as to the House of Representatives reveals that of the seventy-two districts set up for the election of 122 representatives, thirty varied from the norm (17,854) by more than ten per cent, either over or under. There were such widespread margins as 41.60%, 34.87%, 33.81%, and 30.46%.
After requiring briefs of the parties, this Court convened on January 9, 1967, to consider the validity of these plans. On that very day the Supreme Court of the United States decided Swann v. Adams, No. 136, October Term, 1966, 385 U.S. 440, 87 S. Ct. 569, 17 L. Ed. 2d 501.
To obtain and study a copy of that decision before proceeding further, the Court adjourned until the next day. An examination of the decision made it crystal clear that Senate Bill No. 1504 was fatally defective unless the variations *494 above described could be explained on the basis of rational state policy, such as the integrity of political subdivisions, the maintenance of compactness and contiguity in legislative districts, or the recognition of natural or historical boundary lines.
We then entered a formal order giving the State an opportunity to offer such explanations. Since the Mississippi Legislature keeps no stenographic report of its debates and requires no formal committee reports other than recommendations as to passage or rejection, it was impossible for the Attorney General to file such an explanation.
Therefore, under the standards required by Swann v. Adams, supra, we hereby find Senate Bill 1504 to be unconstitutional on its face, null and void.
The primaries for the nomination of candidates for the House and Senate for the 1968-1972 term are scheduled by law for August 8, 1967, with the general election to follow on November 7. There is no alternative now to doing that which we have tried so hard to avoid. The equity powers of this Court must be exercised and we must proceed to order a reapportionment which will meet constitutional standards. To do otherwise could leave the Government of the State of Mississippi in what could be, or could become, chaos.
We expressly point out that the exercise of this unavoidable judicial duty cannot, does not, and will not in any way tie the hands of the Legislature at any time to adopt and enact any plan of its own for the reapportionment of its membership so long as it complies with Constitutional requirements.
We have dismissed as utterly impractical any idea of requiring the election to be held state-at-large. Any effort to reapportion by Congressional Districts would suffer the same disadvantages or difficulties, even if on a less acute scale.
After exhaustive deliberation, including the consideration of all reasonable alternatives which have occurred to us, we now proceed to lay out districts for the election of Senators and Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature so that the 2,178,141 inhabitants will as nearly as possible be equally represented in compliance with the one man one vote rule as enunciated by Swann v. Adams, supra.
In doing this we simply consider the State of Mississippi as a "big house" which must, in one instance be divided into 52 rooms containing substantially the same number of occupants and, in the other must be divided into 122 rooms. This has to be done, of course, within immovable exterior boundaries and within permissible tolerances.
This can be done only through the use of county boundaries and county population figures. Being predominantly a rural state, Mississippi has no other useful population measuring stick. We recognize also that counties are frequently divided from each other by natural boundaries, such as the considerable number of rivers and other large streams within our borders, as the map will verify. We have also taken into consideration the location and courses of state highways as means of communication between the people of one county and the people of other counties placed in the same district. We have consulted county groupings as to judicial districts as giving some evidence of the convenience of the public in the effective exercise of the elective process.
The overpowering consideration, however, has been to make the elective districts as nearly equal as possible in population, without discrimination or favoritism of any kind. We hereby find and adjudicate as a fact that this has been accomplished, considering that it primarily had to be done within the context of county boundaries and county population figures.
Pursuant to this approach it is hereby determined that the Districts for the *495 election of the 52 Senators and the 122 Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature shall be and they are established as follows:
For the Election of Senators
District No. of
No. Counties Senators
1 DeSoto and Tate 1
2 Lafayette and Marshall 1
3 Benton, Pontotoc, and Union 1
4 Alcorn and Tippah 1
5 Itawamba, Prentiss, and Tishomingo 1
6 Lee 1
7 Quitman and Tunica 1
8 Coahoma 1
9 Panola and Yalobusha 1
10 Grenada and Tallahatchie 1
11 Calhoun, Chickasaw, Clay, and Monroe 2
12 Lowndes 1
13 Noxubee and Oktibbeha 1
14 Choctaw, Webster, and Winston 1
15 Attala, Carroll, and Montgomery 1
16 Bolivar and Washington 3
17 Sunflower 1
18 Leflore 1
19 Holmes and Humphreys 1
20 Issaquena, Sharkey, and Yazoo 1
21 Warren 1
22 Madison, Rankin, and Scott 2
23 Leake and Neshoba 1
24 Clarke, Kemper, Lauderdale, and Newton 3
25 Covington, Jasper, and Smith 1
26 Jefferson Davis, Lawrence, and Simpson 1
27 Hinds 5
28 Claiborne and Copiah 1
29 Franklin, Jefferson, and Lincoln 1
30 Adams 1
31 Amite, Pike, Walthall, and Wilkinson 2
32 Forrest, Lamar, and Marion 2
33 Jones and Wayne 2
34 Hancock, Pearl River, and Stone 1
35 Harrison 3
36 George, Greene, Jackson, and Perry 2
*496 As previously noted, allocating 52 Senators to a total population of 2,178,141 fixes the population norm per Senator at 41,887. We hereto attach and make a part of this opinion as Appendix 2 a detailed table of population by counties and districts as affected by this apportionment. It is noted that only six districts vary from the norm in excess of ten percent. These are as follows:
District 5, 12.011% over the norm. District 8, 10.325% over the norm. District 12, 11.345% over the norm. District 18, 12.546% over the norm. District 19, 10.270% over the norm. District 29, 10.266% over the norm.From 1890 to 1962, District 5 stood as we now constitute it. The people of that District are accustomed to electing their Senator as a unit.
Districts 8, 12, and 18 are single county Districts. These counties clearly have more than enough inhabitants to elect a Senator within and of themselves without being combined with another county or other counties. Since 4,188 people are enough to cause a variation of 10% and since none of these variations is as much as 13% we have concluded that the best interests of these people would be served by allowing them to elect their own Senators. Moreover, in a total statewide plan it is impossible to avoid these variations at some point in the State.
Districts 19 and 29 are contiguous, have similar economic interests, and especially comply with the rule of compactness.
The Order of the Court will provide, in keeping with prior Mississippi statutes on the subject, that in Districts electing more than one Senator, the same will be nominated and elected by POSTS as to each member.
It is further noted that in the 16th Senatorial District the County of Bolivar and the County of Washington each have a population in excess of the norm for one Senator, but not enough for two. It will therefore be further ordered that the Senator for Post 1 shall be nominated and elected from Washington County, the Senator for Post 2 shall be nominated and elected from Bolivar County, and for Post 3 from the District at large.
The Districts for the election of 122 Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature shall be and they are established as follows:
House of Representatives
Number
District of Representatives
No. Counties
1 Alcorn and Tishomingo 2
2 Prentiss 1
3 Tippah and Union 2
4 Benton, DeSoto, and Marshall 3
5 Tate 1
6 Tunica 1
7 Coahoma and Quitman 4
8 Lafayette and Panola 3
9 Pontotoc 1
10 Itawamba and Lee 3
11 Monroe 2
12 Chickasaw 1
13 Calhoun 1
14 Tallahatchie and Yalobusha 2
15 Leflore and Sunflower 5
16 Bolivar 3
*497
District of Representatives
No. Counties
17 Issaquena, Sharkey, and Washington 5
18 Humphreys 1
19 Holmes and Yazoo 3
20 Grenada and Montgomery 2
21 Attala and Carroll 2
22 Choctaw and Webster 1
23 Clay 1
24 Lowndes and Oktibbeha 4
25 Winston 1
26 Noxubee 1
27 Kemper and Neshoba 2
28 Leake 1
29 Madison 2
30 Hinds 10
31 Claiborne and Warren 3
32 Rankin 2
33 Scott and Smith 2
34 Newton 1
35 Lauderdale 4
36 Clarke 1
37 Jasper 1
38 Jefferson Davis and Simpson 2
39 Copiah and Lawrence 2
40 Jefferson and Lincoln 2
41 Adams 2
42 Amite, Franklin, and Wilkinson 2
43 Pike 2
44 Marion and Walthall 2
45 Covington and Jones 4
46 Forrest and Lamar 4
47 Wayne 1
48 Greene and Perry 1
49 George and Stone 1
50 Hancock and Pearl River 2
51 Harrison 7
52 Jackson 3
As previously noted, allocating 122 Representatives to a total population of 2,178,141, fixes the population norm per Representative at 17,854. We hereto attach and make a part of this opinion as Appendix 3 a detailed table of population by counties and districts as affected by this apportionment. It is noted that only two districts vary from the norm in excess of ten per cent. These are as follows:
District 13, Calhoun County, 10.715% under the norm.
District 20, Grenada and Montgomery, 11.140% under the norm.
It will be noted that 179 people will vary the Representative norm by one per cent. The variations here involve 126 *498 people in excess of a ten per cent variation in Calhoun County and 202 people in excess of a ten per cent variation in the two counties of Montgomery and Grenada. Lacking any better alternative by possible combinations with adjoining counties (see map, appendix) we cannot allow these small numbers of people (126 in one instance and 202 in the other) to destroy a statewide plan of reapportionment.
Moreover, Calhoun County had to be placed in a four county Senatorial District to meet the standard. From 1890 to 1962, Montgomery and Grenada Counties shared a floater representative, so these counties are accustomed to a joint participation in the legislative elective process. They are closely bound together by Interstate Highway 55 and are in the same judicial district.
The Order of the Court will provide, in keeping with prior Mississippi statutes on the subject, that in Districts electing more than one Representative, the same will be nominated and elected by POSTS as to each Member.
Because Lee County has almost three times the population of Itawamba, we sought to avoid the combination of these two counties in the same district. We found it impossible to observe the norm unless this is done. Moreover, these Counties from 1890 to 1962 shared a floater representative, are closely linked by U.S. Highway 78, and enjoy an unusually close economic solidarity.
Similar considerations and compulsions were encountered in linking Covington with Jones, Lamar with Forrest, and Issaquena and Sharkey with Washington. It may not be amiss for the writer of this opinion to point out that his home County, Choctaw, had to be linked with a County which has more population and more votes. These counties do enjoy many similar interests, however, and indeed were the same County prior to 1874.
These things simply have to be done if we believe that Legislators should represent people and that people are entitled to substantially an equal voice in the selection of their representatives.
As Appendixes 4 and 5, we attach maps showing the geographical outlines of the Senatorial and House Districts, from which it will at once be observed that the districts herein established are contiguous and compact.
In the Seventh District we note that Coahoma County has enough population to meet the requirements for two Representatives on its own, while Quitman has enough for one. It will therefore be further ordered that in the Seventh District for the election of Representatives Posts 1 and 2 will be nominated and elected from Coahoma County, Post 3 will be nominated and elected from Quitman County, and Post 4 will be nominated and elected from the District at large.
Identical considerations require the following similar provisions as to the following Districts.
In the Eighth District, Post 1 will be filled from Lafayette County, Post 2 from Panola County, and Post 3 from the District at large.
In the Fifteenth District, Posts 1 and 2 will be filled from Leflore County, Posts 3 and 4 will be filled from Sunflower County, and Post 5 will be filled from the District at large.
In the Nineteenth District, Post 1 will be filled from Holmes County, Post 2 from Yazoo County, and Post 3 from the District at large.
In the Twenty Fourth District, Posts 1 and 2 will be filled from Lowndes County, Post 3 from Oktibbeha County, and Post 4 from the District at large.
This procedure insures each county of that representation to which the norm entitled it but also insures the entire district the extra representation which its population justifies.
The Court wishes to especially point out in making this apportionment it has not had before it and has not consulted or considered any population figures in any county or district as to the race of the inhabitants thereof, but *499 it has been the deliberate purpose of this Court that this reapportionment shall be wholly devoid of any racial consideration whatsoever.
The parties to this suit may, within ten days, file one complete proposed plan for the reapportionment of both Houses of the Legislature for the entire State if such parties believe and are prepared to demonstrate that such plan more nearly complies than the one herein described with the one man one vote rule and Swann v. Adams. Such plan shall also, of course, take into consideration all appropriate matters of state policy permitted by Swann v. Adams. Such plan may be accompanied by short memoranda or briefs, at the option of the parties, after which the plan will be thoroughly considered by the Court.
Upon the completion of such consideration, this Court will then enter its interlocutory order implementing this opinion and change or changes, if any, considered advisable in light of the recommendations of the parties.
As provided by Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52, this opinion shall constitute our findings of fact in this cause and the Court concludes as a matter of law that the reapportionment herein devised complies with the one man one vote rule as required by the Constitution of the United States.
The Court expressly retains full jurisdiction of the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof in order that it may judicially act upon any plan of Reapportionment which may hereinafter be enacted by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi under either the United States Census of 1960 or 1970, it being the true function of the Legislature to make such reapportionment, subject only to Constitutional review by the Courts.
The order of the Court shall provide for a copy of this opinion and order implementing the same, duly certified by the Clerk of this Court, to be served upon the Governor, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State by the United States Marshal as due and sufficient notice hereof; and all Legislators in both Houses of the Mississippi Legislature shall be elected and hold office as herein provided, and not otherwise, until the further orders of this Court.
*500 APPENDIX 1
APPORTIONMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI SENATE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF S. B. 1504, LAWS OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF 1966
------------------------------------------------------------
Members Rep. by Over
Dist. Population Total to Which No. of Each or % Over
No. Counties of Each Population Entitled Members Member Under or Under
----- -------- ---------- ---------- -------- ------- ------ ----- --------
1 DeSoto 23,891
Tate 18,138 42,029 1.003 1 42,029 142 .33
2 Benton 7,723
Marshall 24,503
Tippah 15,093 47,319 1.129 1 47,319 5,432 12.96
3 Lafayette 21,355
Panola 28,791 50,146 1.197 1 50,146 8,259 19.71
4 Alcorn 25,282
Itawamba 15,080
Prentiss 17,949
Tishomingo 13,889 72,200 1.725 2 36,100 5,787- 13.81-
5 Lee 40,589 40,589 0.969 1 40,589 1,298- 3.09-
6 Pontotoc 17,232
Union 18,904 36,136 0.862 1 36,136 5,751- 13.72-
7 Calhoun 15,941
Grenada 18,409
Tallahatchie 24,081
Yalobusha 12,502 70,933 1.694 2 35,466 6,421- 15.32-
8 Coahoma 46,212 46,212 1.103 1 46,212 4,325 10.32
9 Quitman 21,019
Tunica 16,826 37,845 0.904 1 37,845 4,042- 9.64-
10 Washington 78,638 78,638 1.877 2 39,319 2,568- 6.13-
11 Bolivar 54,464 54,464 1.300 1 54,464 12,577 30.02
12 Sunflower 45,750 45,750 1.092 1 45,750 3,863 9.22
13 Leflore 47,142 47,142 1.125 1 47,142 5,255 12.54
14 Attala 21,335
Carroll 11,177
Montgomery 13,320 45,832 1.094 1 45,832 3,945 9.41
15 Chickasaw 16,891
Clay 18,933 35,824 0.855 1 35,824 6,063- 14.47-
16 Monroe 33,953 33,953 0.811 1 33,953 7,934- 18.94-
17 Lowndes 46,639 46,639 1.113 1 46,639 4,752 11.34
18 Noxubee 16,826
Oktibbeha 26,175 43,001 1.027 1 43,001 1,114 2.65
19 Choctaw 8,423
Webster 10,580
Winston 19,246 38,249 0.913 1 38,249 3,638- 8.68-
20 Kemper 12,277
Neshoba 20,927 33,204 0.793 1 33,204 8,683- 20.72-
21 Leake 18,660
Madison 32,904 51,564 1.231 1 51,564 9,677 23.10
22 Holmes 27,096
Humphreys 19,093 46,189 1.103 1 46,189 4,302 10.27
23 Sharkey 10,738
Yazoo 31,653 42,391 1.012 1 42,391 .504 1.20
24 Issaquena 3,576
Warren 42,206 45,782 1.093 1 45,782 3,895 9.29
25 Claiborne 10,845
Hinds 187,045 197,890 4.724 4 49,472 7,585 18.10
26 Rankin 34,322 34,322 0.819 1 34,322 7,565- 18.06-
27 Newton 19,517
Scott 21,187 40,704 0.972 1 40,704 1,183- 2.82-
28 Clarke 16,493
Lauderdale 67,119 83,612 1.996 2 41,806 81- .19-
29 Jasper 16,909
Simpson 20,454
Smith 14,303 51,666 1.233 1 51,666 9,779 23.34
30 Copiah 27,051
Lawrence 10,215 37,266 0.890 1 37,266 4,621- 11.03-
31 Jefferson 10,142
Lincoln 26,759 36,901 0.881 1 36,901 4,886- 11.90-
32 Adams 37,730 37,730 0.901 1 37,730 4,157- 9.92-
*501
Members Rep. by Over
Dist. Population Total to Which No. of Each or % Over
No. Counties of Each Population Entitled Members Member Under or Under
33 Amite 15,573
Franklin 9,286
Pike 35,063
Wilkinson 13,235 73,157 1.747 2 36,578 5,309- 12.67-
34 Marion 23,293
Walthall 13,512 36,805 0.879 1 36,805 5,082- 12.13-
35 Covington 13,637
Jefferson Davis 13,540
Lamar 13,675 40,852 0.975 1 40,852 1,035- 2.47-
36 Jones 59,542
Wayne 16,258 75,800 1.809 2 37,900 3,987- 9.51-
37 Forrest 52,722 52,722 1.259 1 52,722 10,835 25.86
38 George 11,098
Greene 8,366
Perry 8,745
Stone 7,013 35,222 0.841 1 35,222 6,665- 15.91-
39 Harrison 119,489 119,489 2.853 3 39,829 2,058- 4.91-
40 Jackson 55,522 55,522 1.326 1 55,522 13,635 32.55
41 Hancock 14,039
Pearl River 22,411 36,450 0.870 1 36,450 5,437- 12.98-
--------- --------- ------ -- ------ ------ ---
TOTALS & AVERAGES 2,178,141 2,178,141 52.000 52 41,887
=======================================================
*502
APPORTIONMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. B. 1504, LAWS OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF 1966
Members Rep. by Over
Dist. Population Total to Which No. of Each or % Over
No. Counties of Each Population Entitled Members Member Under or Under
15 Alcorn 25,282 25,282 1.416 1 25,282 7,428 41.60
16 Amite 15,573 15,573 0.872 1 15,573 2,281- 12.77-
17 Calhoun 15,941 15,941 0.893 1 15,941 1,913- 10.71-
18 Chickasaw 16,891 16,891 0.946 1 16,891 963- 5.39-
19 Clarke 16,493 16,493 0.924 1 16,493 1,361- 7.62-
20 Clay 18,933 18,933 1.060 1 18,933 1,079 6.04
21 Covington 13,637 13,637 0.764 1 13,637 4,217- 23.61-
22 DeSoto 23,891 23,891 1.338 1 23,891 6,037 33.81
23 Grenada 18,409 18,409 1.031 1 18,409 555 3.10
24 Hancock 14,039 14,039 0.787 1 14,039 3,815- 21.36-
25 Humphreys 19,093 19,093 1.069 1 19,093 1,239 6.93
26 Itawamba 15,080 15,080 0.845 1 15,080 2,774- 15.53-
27 Jasper 16,909 16,909 0.947 1 16,909 945- 5.29-
28 Jefferson Davis 13,540 13,540 0.759 1 13,540 4,314- 24.16-
29 Lafayette 21,355 21,355 1.196 1 21,355 3,501 19.60
30 Lamar 13,675 13,675 0.766 1 13,675 4,179- 23.40-
31 Leake 18,660 18,660 1.045 1 18,660 806 4.51
32 Marion 23,293 23,293 1.305 1 23,293 5,439 30.46
33 Montgomery 13,320 13,320 0.746 1 13,320 4,534- 25.39-
34 Newton 19,517 19,517 1.093 1 19,517 1,663 9.31
35 Noxubee 16,826 16,826 0.942 1 16,826 1,028- 5.75-
37 Pearl River 22,411 22,411 1.255 1 22,411 4,557 25.52
38 Pontotoc 17,232 17,232 0.965 1 17,232 622- 3.48-
39 Prentiss 17,949 17,949 1.005 1 17,949 95 .53
40 Quitman 21,019 21,019 1.177 1 21,019 3,165 17.72
41 Scott 21,187 21,187 1.187 1 21,187 3,333 18.66
42 Simpson 20,454 20,454 1.146 1 20,454 2,600 14.56
43 Smith 14,303 14,303 0.801 1 14,303 3,551- 19.88-
44 Tallahatchie 24,081 24,081 1.349 1 24,081 6,227 34.87
45 Tate 18,138 18,138 1.016 1 18,138 284 1.59
46 Tippah 15,093 15,093 0.845 1 15,093 2,761- 15.46-
47 Tishomingo 13,889 13,889 0.778 1 13,889 3,965- 22.20-
48 Tunica 16,826 16,826 0.942 1 16,826 1,028- 5.75-
49 Union 18,904 18,904 1.059 1 18,904 1,050 5.88
50 Walthall 13,512 13,521 0.758 1 13,512 4,342- 24.31-
51 Wayne 16,258 16,258 0.911 1 16,258 1,596- 8.93-
52 Winston 19,246 19,246 1.078 1 19,246 1,392 7.79
53 Adams 37,730 37,730 2.113 2 18,865 1,011 5.66
55 Holmes 27,096 27,096 1.518 2 13,548 4,306- 24.11-
56 Lee 40,589 40,589 2.273 2 20,294 2,440 13.66
58 Madison 32,904 32,904 1.843 2 16,452 1,402- 7.85-
59 Monroe 33,953 33,953 1.902 2 16,976 878- 4.91-
60 Pike 35,063 35,063 1.964 2 17,531 323- 1.80-
61 Rankin 34,322 34,322 1.923 2 17,161 693- 3.88-
63 Yazoo 31,653 31,653 1.773 2 15,826 2,028- 11.35-
64 Bolivar 54,464 54,464 3.051 3 18,154 300 1.68
65 Forrest 52,722 52,722 2.953 3 17,574 280- 1.56-
66 Jackson 55,522 55,522 3.109 3 18,507 653 3.65
67 Jones 59,542 59,542 3.335 3 19,847 1,993 11.16
68 Leflore 47,142 47,142 2.640 3 15,714 2,140- 11.98-
69 Lauderdale 67,119 67,119 3.759 4 16,779 1,075- 6.02-
70 Washington 78,638 78,638 4.405 4 19,659 1,805 10.10
71 Harrison 119,489 119,489 6.693 7 17,069 785- 4.39-
72 Hinds 187,045 187,045 10.476 10 18,704 850 4.76
1 Choctaw 8,423
Webster 10,580 19,003 1.065 1 19,003 1,149 6.43
2 George 11,098
Stone 7,013 18,111 1.015 1 18,111 257 1.43
3 Greene 8,366
Perry 8,745 17,111 0.959 1 17,111 743- 4.16-
4 Issaquena 3,576
Sharkey 10,738 14,314 0.801 1 14,314 3,540- 19.82-
5 Franklin 9,286
Wilkinson 13,235 22,521 1.261 1 22,521 4,667 26.13
6 Attala 21,335
Carroll 11,177 32,512 1.821 2 16,256 1,598- 8.95-
*503
Members Rep. by Over
Dist. Population Total to Which No. of Each or % Over
No. Counties of Each Population Entitled Members Member Under or Under
7 Benton 7,723
Marshall 24,503 32,226 1.805 2 16,113 1,741- 9.75-
8 Copiah 27,051
Lawrence 10,215 37,266 2.087 2 18,633 779 4.36
9 Jefferson 10,142
Lincoln 26,759 36,901 2.067 2 18,450 596 3.33
10 Kemper 12,277
Neshoba 20,927 33,204 1.860 2 16,602 1,252- 7.01-
11 Panola 28,791
Yalobusha 12,502 41,293 2.313 2 20,646 2,792 15.63
12 Claiborne 10,845
Warren 42,206 53,051 2.971 3 17,683 171- .95-
13 Lowndes 46,639
Oktibbeha 26,175 72,814 4.078 4 18,203 349 1.95
14 Coahoma 46,212
Sunflower 45,750 91,962 5.151 5 18,392 538 3.01
--------- --------- ------- --- ------
TOTALS & AVERAGES 2,178,141 2,178,141 122.000 122 17,854
====================================================
*504 APPENDIX 2
REAPPORTIONMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI SENATE
Population Members No. of Population Over (+) % Over (+)
Dist. of Each District to Which Members Per or Under (-) or Under (-)
No. Counties County Population Entitled Given Member Norm Norm
1 DeSoto 23,891
Tate 18,138 42,029 1.003 1 42,029 142+ .339+
2 Lafayette 21,355
Marshall 24,503 45,858 1.095 1 45,858 3,971+ 9.480+
3 Benton 7,723
Pontotoc 17,232
Union 18,904 43,859 1.047 1 43,859 1,972+ 4.708+
4 Alcorn 25,282
Tippah 15,093 40,375 .964 1 40,375 1,512- 3.610-
5 Itawamba 15,080
Prentiss 17,949
Tishomingo 13,889 46,918 1.120 1 46,918 5,031+ 12.011+
6 Lee 40,589 40,589 .969 1 40,589 1,298- 3.099-
7 Quitman 21,019
Tunica 16,826 37,845 .904 1 37,845 4,042- 9.650-
8 Coahoma 46,212 46,212 1.103 1 46,212 4,325+ 10.325+
9 Panola 28,791
Yalobusha 12,502 41,293 .986 1 41,293 594- 1.418-
10 Grenada 18,409
Tallahatchie 24,081 42,490 1.014 1 42,490 603+ 1.440+
11 Calhoun 15,941
Chickasaw 16,891
Clay 18,933
Monroe 33,953 85,718 2.046 2 42,859 972+ 2.321+
12 Lowndes 46,639 46,639 1.113 1 46,639 4,752+ 11.345+
13 Noxubee 16,826
Oktibbeha 26,175 43,001 1.027 1 43,001 1,114+ 2.660+
14 Choctaw 8,423
Webster 10,580
Winston 19,246 38,249 .913 1 38,249 3,638- 8.685-
15 Attala 21,335
Carroll 11,177
Montgomery 13,320 45,832 1.094 1 45,832 3,945+ 9.418+
16 Bolivar 54,464
Washington 78,638 133,102 3.178 3 44,367 2,480+ 5.921+
17 Sunflower 45,750 45,750 1.092 1 45,750 3,863+ 9.222+
18 Leflore 47,142 47,142 1.125 1 47,142 5,255+ 12.546+
19 Holmes 27,096
Humphreys 19,093 46,189 1.103 1 46,189 4,302+ 10.270+
20 Issaquena 3,576
Sharkey 10,738
Yazoo 31,653 45,967 1.097 1 45,967 4,080+ 9.740+
21 Warren 42,206 42,206 1.008 1 42,206 319+ .761+
22 Madison 32,904
Rankin 34,322
Scott 21,187 88,413 2.111 2 44,206 2,319+ 5.536+
23 Leake 18,660
Neshoba 20,927 39,587 .946 1 39,587 2,300- 5.491-
24 Clarke 16,493
Kemper 12,277
Lauderdale 67,119
Newton 19,517 115,406 2.755 3 38,469 3,418- 8.160-
25 Covington 13,637
Jasper 16,909
Smith 14,303 44,849 1.071 1 44,849 2,962+ 7.071+
26 Jefferson Davis 13,540
Lawrence 10,215
Simpson 20,454 44,209 1.055 1 44,209 2,322+ 5.543+
27 Hinds 187,045 187,045 4.465 5 37,409 4,478- 10.691-
28 Claiborne 10,845
Copiah 27,051 37,896 .905 1 37,896 3,991- 9.528-
29 Franklin 9,286
Jefferson 10,142
Lincoln 26,759 46,187 1.103 1 46,187 4,300+ 10.266+
30 Adams 37,730 37,730 .901 1 37,730 4,157- 9.924-
*505
Population Members No. of Population Over (+) % Over (+)
Dist. of Each District to Which Members Per or Under (-) or Under (-)
No. Counties County Population Entitled Given Member Norm Norm
31 Amite 15,573
Pike 35,063
Walthall 13,512
Wilkinson 13,235 77,383 1.847 2 38,692 3,195- 7.628-
32 Forrest 52,722
Lamar 13,675
Marion 23,293 89,690 2.141 2 44,845 2,958+ 7.062+
33 Jones 59,542
Wayne 16,258 75,800 1.810 2 37,900 3,987- 9.518-
34 Hancock 14,039
Pearl River 22,411
Stone 7,013 43,463 1.038 1 43,463 1,576+ 3.762+
35 Harrison 119,489 119,489 2.853 3 39,830 2,057- 4.911-
36 George 11,098
Greene 8,366
Jackson 55,522
Perry 8,745 83,731 1.999 2 41,866 21- .050-
--------- --------- ------ -- ------
TOTALS & AVERAGES 2,178,141 2,178,141 52.000 52 41,887
=========================================================
*506 APPENDIX 3
REAPPORTIONMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Population Members No. of Population Over (+) % Over (+)
Dist. of Each District to Which Members Per or Under (-) or Under (-)
No. Counties County Population Entitled Given Member Norm Norm
1 Alcorn 25,282
Tishomingo 13,889 39,171 2.194 2 19,585 1,731+ 9.695+
2 Prentiss 17,949 17,949 1.005 1 17,949 95+ .532+
3 Tippah 15,093
Union 18,904 33,997 1.904 2 16,999 855- 4.759-
4 Benton 7,723
DeSoto 23,891
Marshall 24,503 56,117 3.143 3 18,706 852+ 4.772+
5 Tate 18,138 18,138 1.016 1 18,138 284+ 1.591+
6 Tunica 16,826 16,826 .942 1 16,826 1,028- 5.758-
7 Coahoma 46,212
Quitman 21,019 67,231 3.765 4 16,808 1,046- 5.859-
8 Lafayette 21,355
Panola 28,791 50,146 2,809 3 16,715 1,139- 6.380-
9 Pontotoc 17,232 17,232 .965 1 17,232 622- 3.484-
10 Itawamba 15,080
Lee 40,589 55,669 3.118 3 18,556 702+ 3.932+
11 Monroe 33,953 33,953 1.902 2 16,977 877- 4.912-
12 Chickasaw 16,891 16,891 .946 1 16,891 963- 5.394-
13 Calhoun 15,941 15,941 .893 1 15,941 1,913- 10.715-
14 Tallahatchie 24,081
Yalobusha 12,502 36,583 2.049 2 18,291 437+ 2.448+
15 Leflore 47,142
Sunflower 45,750 92,892 5.202 5 18,578 724+ 4.055+
16 Bolivar 54,464 54,464 3.051 3 18,155 301+ 1.686+
17 Issaquena 3,576
Sharkey 10,738
Washington 78,638 92,952 5.206 5 18,590 736+ 4.122+
18 Humphreys 19,093 19,093 1.069 1 19,093 1,239+ 6.929+
19 Holmes 27,096
Yazoo 31,653 58,749 3.291 3 19,583 1,729+ 9.684+
20 Grenada 18,409
Montgomery 13,320 31,729 1.777 2 15,865 1,989- 11.140-
21 Attala 21,335
Carroll 11,177 32,512 1.821 2 16,256 1,598- 8.950-
22 Choctaw 8,423
Webster 10,580 19,003 1.065 1 19,003 1,149+ 6.436+
23 Clay 18,933 18,933 1.060 1 18,933 1,079+ 6.043+
24 Lowndes 46,639
Oktibbeha 26,175 72,814 4.078 4 18,203 349+ 1.955+
25 Winston 19,246 19,246 1.078 1 19,246 1,392+ 7.797+
26 Noxubee 16,826 16,826 .942 1 16,826 1,028- 5.758-
27 Kemper 12,277
Neshoba 20,927 33,204 1.860 2 16,602 1,252- 7.012-
28 Leake 18,660 18,660 1.045 1 18,660 806+ 4.514+
29 Madison 32,904 32,904 1.843 2 16,452 1,402- 7.853-
30 Hinds 187,045 187,045 10.476 10 18,704 850+ 4.761+
31 Claiborne 10,845
Warren 42,206 53,051 2.971 3 17,684 170- .952-
32 Rankin 34,322 34,322 1.923 2 17,161 693- 3.881-
33 Scott 21,187
Smith 14,303 35,490 1.988 2 17,745 109- .610-
34 Newton 19,517 19,517 1.093 1 19,517 1,663+ 9.314+
35 Lauderdale 67,119 67,119 3.759 4 16,780 1,174- 6.576-
36 Clarke 16,493 16,493 .924 1 16,493 1,361- 7.623-
37 Jasper 16,909 16,909 .947 1 16,909 945- 5.293-
38 Jefferson Davis 13,540
Simpson 20,454 33,994 1.905 2 16,997 857- 4.800-
39 Copiah 27,051
Lawrence 10,215 37,266 2.087 2 18,633 779+ 4.363+
40 Jefferson 10,142
Lincoln 26,759 36,901 2.067 2 18,450 596+ 3.338+
41 Adams 37,730 37,730 2.113 2 18.865 1,011+ 5.662+
*507
Population Members No. of Population Over (+) % Over (+)
Dist. of Each District to Which Members Per or Under (-) or Under (-)
No. Counties County Population Entitled Given Member Norm Norm
42 Amite 15,573
Franklin 9,286
Wilkinson 13,235 38,094 2.134 2 19,047 1,193+ 6.682+
43 Pike 35,063 35,063 1.964 2 17,532 322- 1.804-
44 Marion 23,293
Walthall 13,512 36,805 2.063 2 18,402 548+ 3.069+
45 Covington 13,637
Jones 59,542 73,179 4.099 4 18,295 441+ 2.470+
46 Forrest 52,722
Lamar 13,675 66,397 3.719 4 16,599 1,255- 7.029-
47 Wayne 16,258 16,258 .911 1 16,258 1,596- 8.939-
48 Greene 8,366
Perry 8,475 17,111 .959 1 17,111 743- 4.161-
49 George 11,098
Stone 7,013 18,111 1.015 1 18,111 257+ 1.439+
50 Hancock 14,039
Pearl River 22,411 36,450 2.042 2 18,225 371+ 2.078+
51 Harrison 119,489 119,489 6.693 7 17,070 784- 4.391-
52 Jackson 55,522 55,522 3.109 3 18,507 653+ 3.657+
--------- --------- ------- --- ------
TOTALS & AVERAGES 2,178,141 2,178,141 122.000 122 17,854
==========================================================
*508 APPENDIX 4 STATE SENATE
*509 APPENDIX 5 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
