A three-judge District Court invalidated Mississippi
apportionment statute as allowing impermissibly large variations
among election districts. The court stated that single member
districts "would be ideal," but, in light of a June 4; 1971,
deadline for filing notices of candidacy, issued its apportionment
plan providing for some multi-member districts, including Hinds
County. Applicants, who had quickly submitted four plans calling
for single-member districts in Hinds County, ask for a stay of that
judgment and an extension of the filing deadline until the District
Court provides single member districts for Hinds County, or until
the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of
Columbia approves the District Court's apportionment plan under § 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Held: A stay is granted until June 14, 1971.
(a) A decree of a district court is not within the reach of § 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(b) Single-member districts are generally preferable to large
multi-member districts in court-fashioned apportionment plans.
(c) In view of the availability of 1970 census data and the
dispatch with which applicants devised their plans, the District
Court is instructed, absent insurmountable difficulties, to devise
and put into effect a single member district plan for Hinds County
by June 14, 1971, and to extend appropriately the filing date for
candidates from that county.
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 exclusively
Page 402 U. S. 691
in Hinds County. The following day, May 18, 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 the 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 402 U. S. 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
"final population counts," and "computer print-out from Census
Bureau official computer tapes showing total and white/Negro
population by census enumeration districts." Applicants also assert
that no other population figures will subsequently become
available.
The District Court's judgment was that single member districting
would be "ideal" for Hinds County. We agree that, when district
courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single member
districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a
general matter. Furthermore, given the census information
apparently available and the dispatch with which the applicants
devised suggested plans for the District Court, it is our view
that, on this record, the District Court had ample time to devise
single member districts for Hinds County prior to the June 4 filing
deadline. While meeting the June 4 date is no longer possible,
there is nothing before us to suggest any insurmountable barrier to
devising such a plan by June 14, 1971. Therefore the motion for
stay is granted and the judgment below is stayed until June 14. The
District Court is instructed, absent insurmountable difficulties,
to devise and put into effect a single-member district plan for
Hinds County by that date.
Page 402 U. S. 693
In light of this disposition, the District Court is directed to
extend the June 4 filing date for legislative candidates from Hinds
County to an appropriate date so that those candidates and the
State of Mississippi may act in light of the new districts into
which Hinds County will be divided.
It is so ordered.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN
dissent and reserve the right to file an opinion to that
effect.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE
HARLAN join, dissenting.
*
I strongly dissent from the stay order of June 3, 1971, more
particularly as it relates to a postponement of the Hinds County,
Mississippi, election. Under Mississippi law and the decrees of the
three-judge court, Hinds County candidates for the state
legislature would be elected from the county at large. But this
Court -- at the eleventh hour -- now commands the District Court to
change its decree and divide Hinds County into single-member
districts so that each voter there can vote for only one state
representative and one state senator. Under Mississippi law, the
final filing date for candidates is June 4. This Court's order now
postpones that deadline to "an appropriate date" after June 14. The
order compels candidates who had expected to run countywide to
change their plans completely and to campaign only in a particular
district which is part of the county. The confusion is compounded
because the candidates do not yet know where the district lines
will be drawn. Any candidate would be dumbfounded by the thought
that his old district had suddenly been abolished on the eve
Page 402 U. S. 694
of the filing date and he must now run in a new but unspecified
district which is still only a dream in the eyes of the United
States Supreme Court sitting a thousand miles from Hinds
County.
This abrupt order by the Court is all the more astounding since
this Court has consistently approved multi-member districts for
state legislatures.
Burnette v. Davis, 382 U. S.
42 (1965);
Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.
S. 433 (1965);
Burns v. Richardson,
384 U. S. 73
(1966).
I do not deny that this Court has the sheer, raw power to impose
single member districts on Hinds County. I do, however, strongly
object to this Court's exercising that power by throwing a monkey
wrench into the county election procedure at this late date.
Above all else, we should remember that no one of us is a
resident of Mississippi or the Judicial Circuit of which
Mississippi is a part. The judges who entered this order do reside
in that Circuit, they heard the evidence and oral arguments, and
examined the statistics. We should not forget they concluded
that:
"There is no evading the fact that, with 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 the House in time
for the elections of 1971."
The holding of a county election is a difficult, intricate, and
time-consuming process. Orders must be filed, ballots printed,
campaigning plans laid, and officials appointed. Many different
procedures must be carefully synchronized if the elections are to
be efficiently and fairly administered. But today the Court plunges
into an unfamiliar arena and creates utter confusion for the
voters, candidates, and officials of Hinds County by
Page 402 U. S. 695
subjecting them to the judicial branch of Federal
Government.
Needless to say, I completely agree with the holding of the
majority that a reapportionment plan formulated and ordered by a
federal district court need not be approved by the United States
Attorney General or the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Under our constitutional system, it would be
strange indeed to construe § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79
Stat. 439, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. V), to require that
actions of a federal court be stayed and reviewed by the Attorney
General or the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
I dissent.
* [NOTE: This opinion was filed June 4, 1971.]