Brooks v. Allain Jurisdictional Statement

    No. 

IN THE 

~uprtutt Ointlrt nf tqr lltuittb ~tatra 
OCTOBER TERM, 1983 

OWEN H. BROOKS, et al., 

v. Appellants, 

BILL ALLAIN, Governor of Mississippi, et al., 
Appellees. 

On Appeal From the United States District Court 
For the Northern District of Mississippi 

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 

WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
FRANK R. PARKER -x­

pATRICIA M. HANRAHAN 
SIDNEY R. BIXLER 

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR 
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

1400 I Street, N.W. 
Suite 400 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202 ) 371-1212 

ROBERT BRUCE McDUFF 
University of Mississippi 

Law School 
Univers,ity, Mississippi 38677 
(601) 232-5483 

JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. 
WALLS, BUCK & IRVING, LTD. 
163 North Broadway Street 
Post Office Bo·x 634 
Greenville, Mississippi 38701 
(601) 335-6001 

Attorneys for Appellants 

* Counsel of Record 

WILSON· EPES PRINTING Co., INC . • 789-0096 ·WASHINGTON, D . C . 20001 





QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

1. Whether, given an extensive past history of racial 
discrimination against black voters of Mississippi in 
voting and congressional redistricting, the District Court 
was prohibited by law from creating a 65 percent black 
congressional district in which black voters have an op~ 
portunity to gain representation of their choice as a rem~ 
edy for a court~ordered plan found to deny black voters 
an opportunity to gain representation of their choice. 

2. Whether the District Court's remedial plan violates 
the strict guidelines against racial dilution applicable to 
court~ordered plans and provides an effective remedy for 
voting rights violations by creating a large, sprawling, 
uncompact district which splits off adjoining black pop~. 

ulation concentrations. 

(i) 



ii 

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs below are: Owen H. Brooks, Rev. Harold R. 
Mayberry, Willie Long, Robert E. Young, Thomas Mor­
ris, Charles McLaurin, Samuel McCray, Robert L. Jack­
son, Rev. Carl Brown, June E. Johnson, and Lee Ethel 
Henry. 

Appellees (defendants below) are: Bill Allain, Gover-' 
nor of Mississippi, Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Attorney Gen­
eral, Dick Molpus, Secretary of State, in their offiCial 
capacities and as members of the Mississippi State Board 
of Election Commissioners (substituting the successors in 
office for the original defendants), and the Democratic 
and Republican State Executive Committees. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 

OPINIONS BELOW --·---·-----------------------·---- -------------------- ---- 2 

JURISDICTION --------------·-------·-------- ----•-- --·------- -------------------- 2 

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED--·------------------- 2 

STATEMENT OF THE GASE ----------- --------- -- -------- ---------- 3 

'J'HE QUESTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL ----------------- ---- 11 

I. THE DISTRICT' COURT MISCONSTRUED 
GOVERNING LEGAL REMEDIAL PRINCI­
PLES WHEN IT HELD THAT WAS PRO­
HIBITED BY LAW F ROM ESTABLISHING 
A REMEDIAL DISTRICT WHICH WOULD 
GIVE BLACK VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO ELECT CANDIDATES OF THEIR 
CHOICE ---·----------------·--- ----- ----·--------------------·------------·---- 13 

II. THE DISTRICT COURT'S PLAN VIOLATES. 
THE STRICT GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED 
FOR COURT-ORDERED PLANS BY THIS 
COURT IN CONNOR v. FINCH -------------------- ---- 18 

CONCLUSION ·----------------------------------- --------------------------------- 20 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. District Gourt Opinion ---- ------ ---------- 1a 

Appendix B. District Court Judgment__________ __ _____ _ 22a 

Appendix G. Notice of Appeal --------------------- ----------· 31a 

(iii) 



J 

iv 

TABLE OF AUTHORIT'IES 
Cases Page 

Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977) ___ __________ _____ _ 11, 18-20 
Connor v. Johnson, 279 F. Supp. 619 (S.D. Miss .. 

. 1966) (three-judge court), afj'd mem., 386 U.S. 
483 (1967) ---------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ 4 

Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690 (1971) __________________ 18 
Donnell v. United States, Civil No. 78-0392 (D.D.C. 

July 31, 1979) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 
444 u.s.. 1059 (1980) --------------- ---·-- -------------------- -- ---- 9 

East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 
u.s. 636 (1976) ------------ ------ ---------- --------------------- ----- 12, 18 

Jones v. City of Lubbock,-- F.2d- (5.th Gir. 
1984) ·--------·------------·-- ----------·----------------·------------------------ 12 

Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 
544 F.2d 139 (5th Cir.) (en bane), cert. denied, 
434 u.s. 968 (1977) --- ----------------------- ---------------------- 19 

Major v. Treen, 574 F. Supp. 325 (E.D.La. 1983) 
(three-judge court) ·------------·-------- -- -- ------------------------ 12 

McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981) ________ ______ 12 
Mississippi v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 1329 (D.D.C. 

1982) (three-judge court), appeal dism'd, 103 
S.Ct. 1888 (1983) --- ----- -------------------------- -- --------------- 4, 5 

Mississippi v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 569 
(D.D.C. 1979) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 
444 u.s .. 1050 (1980) ·---------------------------------------------- 9 

Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982.) ______________ _______ _ 12, 19 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa-

tion, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) -------------------- --- ------------------- 13 
United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S.. 

144 (1977) ----------·----·----·---------------------------------- ----------1, 12, 15 
United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965) __ 4 
Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982) _____________________ 12 
Valesquez v. City of Abilene,-- F.2d- (5th 

Cir. 1984) ·------------- ---------------------------------------------------- 12 
White v. Regester, 412' U.S. 755 (1973) ___________________ 14 
White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1972.) __________ ______ ______ 12 
Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S.. 535 (1978) --- -- --- ---------- -- 12 

Other Authorities 
S. Rep. No. 9·7-417, 9·7th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) ____ 14,19 



IN THE 

:§uprl'ml' Qlnurt nf t~l' 1llttitt>~ §tatrn 
OCTOBER TERM, 1983 

No.-

OWEN H. BROOKS, et al., 

v. Appellants, 

BILL ALLAIN, Governor of Mississippi, et al., 
Appellees. 

On Appeal From the United States District Court 
For the Northern District of Mississippi 

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 

Appellants, black registered voters of Mississippi who 
reside in the Mississippi Delta area, appeal from the 
final judgment of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Mississippi, entered January 6, 
1984, ordering into effect a new court-ordered congres­
sional redistricting plan. While appellants agree with 
the District Court's holding that the pre-existing 1982 
court-ordered plan violates Section 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act, they challenge the District Court's design of 
a new court-ordered plan, contending in this appeal that 
the new plan does not meet this Court's guidelines for 
court-ordered redistricting plans, that it follows from a 
misapplication of Section 2's language regarding propor­
tional representation, that it misconstrues this Court's 
holding in United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 
U.S. 144 ( 1977), and that it fails to remedy the Section 



2 

2 violation as well as a previous Section 5 violation 
found by the Attorney General relating to congressional 
districting in Mississippi. 

OPINIONS BELOW 

The opinion of the three-judge District Court for the 
Northern District of Mississippi entered April 16, 1984, 
is unreported and is reproduced in Appendix A. The 
prior District Court opinion is reported at 541 F. Supp. 
1135 (N.D. Miss. 1982) (three-judge court), and was 
vacated and remanded by this Court for reconsideration 
in light of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as 
amended in 1982, 103 S.Ct. 2077 ( 1983). 

The District Court opinion in~ related case, Mississippi 
v. Smith, is reported at 541 F. Supp. 1329 (D.D.C. 
1982) (three-judge court), appeal dism'd, 103 S.Ct. 1888 
(1983). 

JURISDICTION 

The judgment of the three-judge District Court or­
dering into effect a new court-ordered congressional re­
districting plan was entered on January 6, 1984, and is 
reproduced herein as Appendix B. Appellants filed their 
notice of appeal on February 15, 1984, reproduced as 
Appendix C, within 60 days of the date of entry of the 
final judgment as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (b). By 
Order dated April 4, 1984, Justice White extended the 
time for docketing this appeal to and including May 15, 
1984. 

This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 
u.s.c. § 1253. 

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1973, as amended in 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-205, § 3, 96 
Stat. 134, provides: 



3 

Sec. 2 (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite 
to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be 
imposed or applied by any state or political subdivi­
sion in a manner which results in a denial or 
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the 
United States to vote on account of race or color, or 
in contravention of the guarantees set forth in sec­
tion 4 (f) (2), as provided in subsection (b). 

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established 
if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown 
that the political processes leading to nomination or 
election in the State or political subdivision are not 
equally open to participation by members of a class 
of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its 
members have less opportunity than other members 
of the electorate to participate in the political proc­
ess and to elect representatives of their choice. The 
extent to which members of a protected class have 
been elected to office in the State or political sub­
division is one circumstance which may be consid­
ered: Provided, that nothing in this section estab­
lishes a right to have members of a protected class 
elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the 
population. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

For the past eighteen years, since 1966, black voters 
of Mississippi have been subjected to racial discrimina­
tion in congressional redistricting and denied an equal 
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in con­
gressional elections. 

Mississippi is 35 percent black, and blacks are most 
heavily concentrated in the Delta area, in northwest Mis­
sissippi. Prior to the· passage of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, Mississippi had a Delta congressional district 
which was 65.51 percent black/ but blacks we·re almost 

1 The old Delta district, which was then the Third Congressional 
District, was 65.51 percent black in population under the 1956 plan 
in 1960. In 1962 the Second and Third Districts were combined, 



totally excluded from the electoral process by the State's 
"long-standing, carefully prepared, and faithfully ob­
served plan to bar Negroes from voting ... " United 
States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 135-36 (1965). In 
1966, just as black citizens were beginning to register 
and vote in substantial numbers, the Mississippi Legisla­
ture redrew the boundaries of the State's five congres­
sional districts and divided the heavily-black Delta area 
horizontally among three congressional districts, . depriv­
ing black voters of a voting majority in any of the dis­
tricts. See Mississippi v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 1329, 1331 
(D.D.C. 1982) (three-judge court), appeal dism'd, 103 
S.Gt. 1888 (1983) .2 Although a District Court rejected 
a constitutional challenge to the 1966 plan/ that plan 
never received the Federal preclearance required by Sec­
tion 5 of the Voting Rights Act. ld. This same pattern 
of dividing up the black population concentration of the 
Delta area and depriving black voters of a majority­
black congressional district was followed in the 1972 and 
1981 redistrictings enacted by the Mississippi Legisla­
ture. Id. 

In March, 1982, the Attorney General of the United 
States objected pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act to Mississippi's 1981 congressional redistrict­
ing plan (the "least change" plan) for unlawful frag­
mentation and dilution of black voting strength in the 
Delta area.4 Although the Mississippi Legislature was 

and the black population percentage was reduced to 59.29 percent. 
Ex. P-13A. 

2 The history of Mississippi congressional redistricting was ex­
tensively discussed in our prio,r Jurisdictional Statement in Brooks 
v. Winter, No. 82-233, pp. 16-23. 

s Connor v. Johnson, 279 F . Supp. 619 (S.D. Miss. 1966) (three­
judge court) (newspaper articles showing racial motivation may 
not be used to impeach "the solemn acts of the Congress or o.f 
State legislatures"), aff'd mem., 386 U.S. 483 (1967). 

4 In his Section 5 objection letter, the Attorney General found 
that prior to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, · Mississippi 



5 

then in session when the Attorney General's Section 5 
objection was announced, and has held two regular ses­
sions since then, no new legislative congressional redis­
tricting plan has been enacted by the Mississippi Legis­
lature.5 

Appellants Owen H. Brooks, et al., filed this class ac­
tion in April, 1982, seeking a court-ordered plan for the 
conduct of congressional elections. After a trial, the 
three-judge District Court in June, 1982 enjoined use of 
the "least change" plan based on the Section 5 objection 
and enjoined use of the then-existing 1972 plan for un­
constitutional malapportionment. Jordan v. Winter, 541 
F. Supp. 1135 (N.D. Miss. 1982) (three-judge court), 
vacated and remanded sub nom. Brooks v. Winter, 103 
S.Ct. 2077 (1983). 

Appellants urged the District Court to order into ef­
fect one or the other of two plans (the "Kirksey plans") 
which kept the Delta area intact within one congres­
sional district and combined the Delta area with ad­
joining, predominantly black portions of Hinds County 
and the· City of Jackson (which is located within Hinds _ 
County), resulting in plans ·which each had one majority­
black congressional district which were 64.37 percent 
black and 65.81 percent black, respectively. 541 F. Supp. 
at 1140. Instead, the District Court ordered into effect a 

had one congressional district in the Mississippi Delta a.rea which 
was 65 percent black. The Mississippi Legisla,turels 1981 plan, he 
found, contained districts which "ha.v.e been drawn horizontally 
across the majority"black Delta area in such a, manne'r as, to dis­
member the black population concentration and effectively dilute 
its voting strength." See Brooks v. Winter, No•. 82-233, Jurisdic­
tional Statement, Appendix B, pp. 25a-29a. 

5 Mississippi filed a judicial preclearance action in the Dis,trict 
Court for the District of Columbia for app·roval o.f its 1981 plan, but 
that action was voluntarily dismissed by the State after the District 
Court denied the State's motion for summary judgment. Mississippi 
v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 1329 (D.D.G. 1982.) (three-judge court), 
appeal dism'd, 103 S.Ct. 1888 (1983). 



6 

plan (the "Simpson plan") which combined the Delta 
area with six predominantly-white Hill counties in east­
central Mississippi, resulting in four majority white dis­
tricts and one district (the Second District) which had a 
slight black population majority of 53.77 percent ( id. at 
1139) but which had a white voting age population ma­
jority (black voting age population of 48.05 percent) 
(District Court Opinion of April 16, 1984, App. A at-
tached, p. 5a). In the 1982 congressional elections 
in the Second District a black candidate, veteran state 
legislator Robert Clark, won the Democratic primary 
but lost the general election to a white opponent, the 
District Court in its most recent opinion found, in part 
because of racial bloc voting by whites and racial cam­
paigning by the white candidate which induced racially 
polarized voting. App. A, pp. 10a-12a. 

The black voter plaintiffs appealed, contending that 
the District Court's 1982 court-ordered plan unneces­
sarily diluted black voting strength in the face of alter~ 
native, more compact plans which would have preserved 
the Delta area intact and would have avoided combining 
the Delta area with predominantly white Hill counties to 
diminish black voting strength. The state official defend­
ants also appealed, contending that the District Court 
erred in implementing a court-ordered plan. This Court 
in May, 1983 vacated and remanded the District Court's 
decision "for further consideration in light of Section 2 
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973, 
as amended in 1982." Brooks v. Winter, 103 S.Ct. 2077 
(1983). 

On remand, after a two-and-a-half-day trial in De­
cember, 1983, the District Court ruled that in the struc­
ture of the Second Congressional District its 1982 court­
ordered plan unlawfully diluted black voting strength in 
violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as 
amended in 1982: 



7 

The combination of six predominantly white eastern 
counties with the Delta region's black population, 
when considered in light of the effects of past dis­
crimination on black efforts to participate in politi­
cal affairs and the existence of racially polarized 
voting, operated to minimize, cancel, or dilute black 
voting strength in the Second District. 

App. A, p. lla. On the facts presented at trial, the Dis­
trict Court found that black voters in the Delta area, 
under the new Section 2 standard, have less opportunity 
than their white counterparts to participate in the politi­
cal process and to elect representatives of their choice. 
The court found that Mississippi has a long history of 
official racial discrimination in voting which "includes 
the use of such discriminatory devices as poll taxes, 
literacy tests, residency requirements, white primaries, 
and the use of violence to intimidate blacks from regis­
tering for the vote." App. A, p. 9a. The effects of this 
past discrimination, the court found, "presently impede 
black voter registration and turnout. Black registration 
in the Delta area is still disproportionately lower than 
white registration. No black has been elected to Con­
gress since the Reconstruction period, and none has been 
elected to statewide office in this century." ld. The court 
also found that black political participation in the Delta 
area is impeded by facts showing that blacks in the 
Delta area have disproportionately lower median family 
income ($7,447 for blacks, as compared with $17,467 for 
whites), less education (more than half have less than 
nine years of education, while the majority of whites are 
high school graduates), unemployment rates which are 
two to three times higher than the white unemployment 
rate, and inferior housing conditions. Id., p. lOa. 

Equal black political participation in Mississippi elec­
tions, the District Court determined, also is impeded by 
racial bloc voting, which deprives black voters of an 
equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in 
a district in which they do not have a voting majority: 



Plaintiffs' proof, also based on analysis of these elec­
tion returns, demonstrated a consistently high de­
gree of racially polarized voting in the 1982 elec­
tion and previous elections. From all of the evi­
dence, we conclude that blacks consistently lose elec­
tions in Mississippi because the majority of voters 
choose their preferred candidates on the basis of race. 
We therefore find racial bloc voting operates to di­
lute black voting strength in Congressional districts 
where blacks constitute a minority of the voting age 
population. Since the Second District under the 
Simpson Plan does not have a majority black voting 
age population, the presence of racial bloc voting in 
that district inhibits black voters from participating 
on an equal basis with white voters in electing rep­
resentatives of their choice. 

ld., pp. lOa-lla. 

At the second trial plaintiffs urged, on the basis of 
this factual proof showing that black voters in Mississippi 
are seriously disadvantaged politically, that a district 
which is 65 percent black in population or 60 percent 
black in voting age population was necessary as a rem­
edy to give black voters an equal opportunity to partici­
pate in the political processes and to elect candidates of 
their choice. The State of Mississippi has stipulated that 
because of low black voter registration, turnout, and 
racial bloc voting, absent exceptional circumstances, "a 
district should contain a black population of at least 65 
percent or a black V AP of 60 percent to provide black 
voters with an opportunity to elect a candidate of their 
choice." '6 Similar findings have been made by District 

6 This stipulation, which was entered into in Mississippi v. Smith, 
and which was admitted in evidence in this case (Ex. P-1, p. 5, 
n 16)' establishes: 

16. Low black voter registration and voter turn-out combined 
with racial bloc voting make it necessary for an electoral dis­
trict in Mississippi to contain a substantial majority of black 
eligible voters in order to provide black voters with an oppor-



9 

Courts in reviewing Mississippi redistricting plans un­
der Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Mississippi v. 
United States, 490 F. Supp. 569, 575 (D.D.C. 1979) 
(three-judge court), aff'd mem., 444 U.S. 1050 (1980); 
Donnell v. United States, Civil No. 78-0392 (D.D.C. July 
31, 1979) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 444 U.S. 1059 
( 1980). The expert witness testimony adduced at the 
second trial from Dr. Gordon Henderson, professor of 
political science at Earlham College and an experienced 
Mississippi election analyst, and State Senator Henry 
Kirksey, also an experienced redistricting expert, sup­
ports this conclusion (Trial Transcript, Dec. 19-21, 1983, 
pp. 129, 173-74), as does testimony from seven black 
political and community leaders from Delta counties.7 

tunity to elect a candidate of their choice. It has been gen­
erally conceded that, barring exceptional circumstances such as 
two candidates splitting the vote, a district should contain a 
black population of at least 65 percent or a black VAP of 60 
percent to provide black voters with an opportunity to elect a 
candidate of their choice. In more recent elections black candi­
dates have, on occasion, been elected to. public office from dis­
tricts with a population less than 65 percent black. 

7 Ex. P-22, Dr. Robert E. Young, Washington County, p. 65 (dis­
trict should be 65 percent black or more so that black people could 
"overcome this historical feeling of hopelessness or disbelief that 
they can really make a difference") ; Ex. P-23, Gregory Flippins, 
Bolivar County, fo·rmer mayor, p. 25 (district would have to. be 
60 percent or· 65 percent black in voting age population) ; Ex. 
P-24, Attorney Thomas Morris, Bolivar County, pp. 10-11 (dis­
trict would have to be 65 percent black in popula.tion because of 
"past discrimination in the voting process and in the past attempts 
to disenfranchise blacks") ; Ex. P-25, Samuel McCray, community 
organizer, Quitman County, p. 67 (district would have to be 65 perr­
cent black for black voters to have "a fair chance of electing a 
person of [their] choice") ; Ex. P-27, Jake Ayers, Mississippi Free~ 
dom Democratic Party community organizer, Washington County, 
pp. 20-21 (district would have to be at least 58 percent black in 
voting age• population in order for blacks to have an equal oppor­
tunity to elect candidates of their choice) ; Ex. P-28, Clarence Hall, 
Issaquena County, p. 9 (district would have to be 60 percent black 
in voting age population) ; Ex. P-30, Attorney Edward Blackmon, 
presently, member of the Mississippi House of Representatives•, 
Madison County (district must be 68 percent to 70 percent black). 



10 

At the second trial, plaintiffs offered two additional, 
geographically-compact congressional redistricting plans 
based on existing voting precincts. One contained a ma­
jority black district in the Delta area which was 64.35 
percent black in population (Ex. P-81) and another con­
tained a majority black district in the Delta area which 
was 63.60 percent black in population (Ex. P-82). Both 
plans, Senator Kirksey testified, would give black voters 
a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice 
in the one majority black district ( Tr. 166-67, 17 4). 

The District Court rejected plaintiffs' proposed reme­
dial plans for the express reason that these plans "would 
probably insure the election of a black congressman in 
the Second District" (App. A, p. 15a). This factor, the 
District Court held, was inconsistent with the disclaimer 
in Section 2, as amended (App. A, pp. 14a-15a), which 
provides that "nothing in this section establishes a right 
to have members of a protected class elected in numbers 
equal to their proportion in the population." 

The court rejected alternative plans offered by plain­
tiffs which would achieve a significantly higher black 
voting age population (approximately 60%) in the 
Second District. Plaintiffs argue that a black voting 
age population of such preponderance is required 
for blacks to elect representatives of their choice. 
Amended § 2, however, does not guarantee or insure 
desired results, and it goes no further than to af­
ford black citizens an equal opportunity to partici­
pate in the political process. 

App. A, p. 14a. The court stated that its own plan "sat­
isfies the requirements of amended § 2 without achieving 
proportional representation for blacks in Mississippi" 
( id.). The District Court also gave as reasons for re­
jecting plaintiffs' plans that they would reduce the black 
population percentage in the Fourth District to the 33 
percent level (from 41.99 percent in the court's plan) 
(App. A, p. 14a), and would combine urban areas of 
the City of Jackson with the rural Delta area ( id.). 



11 

For the 1984 congressional election, the District Court 
devised a new plan which, in the Second District, elimi­
nated five of the six predominantly-white Hill counties, 
and which extended further south to take in two majority­
black River counties and portions of the Jackson sub­
urbs in Hinds County. These changes increased the 
black population percentage of the Second District to 58.30 
percent from 53.77 percent, and increased the black vot­
ing age population percentage to 52.83 percent from 
48.05 percent (App. A, p. 13a). The District Court ac­
knowledged, however, that its new plan "does not pro­
vide a compact geographical configuration for the Second 
District" ( id., p. 15a). 

THE QUESTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL 

This case presents the . important issues surrounding 
the scope and application of a District Court's remedial 
authority when designing a court-ordered redistricting 
plan in the wake of a violation of Section 2 of the Vot­
ing Rights Act. 

With the new amendment to Section 2 taking effect in 
the summer of 1982, this Court has yet to consider the 
proper remedial response to a Section 2 violation where 
the legislature abandons its duty to fashion a lawful 
plan. Indeed, this Court has never fully explicated the 
remedial parameters involved after a finding of vote 
dilution in a constitutional case, although several decisions 
have skirted the edges of the issue. 8 

8 Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977), is probably the closest. 
The lower court designed a legislative redistricting plan after the 
Attorney General objected to the legislature's. plan under Section 5. 
Plaintiff's appeal to this Court contended that the lower court­
ordered plan was malapportioned and, in addition, diluted black 
voting strength. This Court reversed on the malappo·rtionment 
issue, without ruling on the dilution claims, but prescribed guide;. 



12 

Lower courts all over the South are hearing cases in­
volving the 1982 amendment to Section 2 in all of its 
aspects, including the question of remedial relief. See 
e.g., Major v. Treen, 574 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. La. 1983) 
(three judge court); Valesquez v. City of Abilene, -­
F.2d -- (5th Cir. 1984); Jones v. City of Lubbock, 
--F.2d -- (5th Cir. 1984). Guidance from this 
Court would be of great help. 

While appellants challenge the District Court's reme­
dial order in part on the basis of factual considerations 
relevant to congressional redistricting in the State of Mis­
sissippi, they also raise broader issues of the proper 
standards for a court-ordered redistricting plan, the cor­
rect construction of Section 2's proportional representa­
tion disclaimer, and the application of this Court's deci­
sion in United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 
144 (1977). 

lines. so that the district court could avoid dilution problems upon 
remand. 431 U.S. at 421-426. 

White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1972), involved a malapportion­
ment case and did not p·resent any dilution questions. East Carroll 
Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976), was a dilu­
tion case, but the issues before this Court went only to· whether the 
remedial plan was court-ordered or not, and whether court-ordered 
plans for local governments must have single-member districts. 
Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978), was limited to the distinc­
tion between a court-ordered and a legisla.tive plan, as was Mc­
Daniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981). Upham v. Seamon, 456 
U.S. 37 (1982) dealt with the District Court's remedial power after 
a Section 5 objection by the Attorney General, in the absence of a 
constitutio·nal adjudication of vote dilution. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 
U.S. 613, 627-628 (1982), devo·ted only a paragraph to the remedial 
issue, merely holding that the District Court and Court of Appeals 
had found no facto·rs to militate against the use of single-member 
districts after an at-large system had been ruled unconstitutional. 



13 

I. THE DISTRICT COURT MISCONSTRUED GOV­
ERNING LEGAL REME.DIAL PRINCIPLES WHEN 
IT HELD THAT IT WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW 
FROM ESTABLISHING A REMEDIAL DISTRICT 
WHICH WOULD GIVE BLACK VOT'ERS AN OP­
PORTUNITY TO ELECT CANDIDATES OF THEIR 
CHOICE. 

The issue in this case is not whether plaintiffs' rights 
have been violated in congressional redistricting-all par­
ties now concede that there was a violation-but rather 
what remedy should the District Court fashion to make 
the victims of discrimination whole. The District Court 
determined that its own prior plan violated amended 
Section 2 by denying black voters in the Delta area an 
equal opportunity to participate in the political processes 
and to elect candidates of their choice. Given the equi­
table remedial principle that the remedy should be de­
termined by the nature and scope of the violation, Swann 
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S~ 
1 (1971), it follows that black voters of Mississippi who 
have been discriminated against in congressional redis­
tricting for the past eighteen years should now be given 
an opportunity to gain representation of their choice in 
one congressional district. 

The District Court erred in holding that it was pro­
hibited by law from fashioning a plan containing one 
district with a sufficiently large black voting age popula­
tion majority as to give black voters an opportunity to 
elect representatives of their choice. First, the District 
Court clearly was wrong when 'it ruled that creating one 
65 percent black district would constitute proportional 
representation. The overwhelming testimony was that 
even creating a 65 percent black district would not guar­
antee the election of a black member of Congress. N ev­
ertheless, black people comprise 35 percent of the state's 
population and 31 percent of the state's voting age pop­
ulation. Providing black voters with an opportunity to 



14 

elect one out of five members of Congress (20 percent) 
does not constitute proportional representation in any 
sense. 

Second, the District Court disregarded the statutory 
language of the 1982 amendment to Section 2 and its 
legislative history when it ruled that Section 2 prohibits 
the creation of a 65 percent black district as a remedy 
for proven racial discrimination in redistricting. Sec­
tion 2's disclaimer against a right to proportional rep­
resentation clearly is addressed to the issue of what con­
stitutes a violation of Section 2, not to the design of a 
remedy. Section 2 (b) begins: "A violation of subsection 
(a) is established if ... " The extent to which minority 
officeholders have been elected "is one circumstance which 
may be considered : Provided, That nothing in this sec­
tion establishes a right to have members of a protected 
class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the 
population." This entire subsection addresses only what 
constitutes a violation, and does not control the issue of 
a remedy. No protected group has a right to proportional 
representation, therefore the lack of proportional repre­
sentation does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation 
of Section 2. 

This disclaimer is directly derived from this Court's 
decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 ( 1973), in 
which the Court held: 

To sustain such claims [that multimember districts 
are being used invidiously to cancel out or minimiz~ 
minority voting strength], it is not enough that the 
racial group allegedly discriminated against has not 
had legislative seats in proportion to its voting po­
tential. 

412 U.S. at 765-66. See S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 
2d Sess. 28, 31-32 (1982). Congress did not intend by 
this disclaimer to limit the options available to District 
Courts in considering a remedy: 



15 

The court should exercise its traditional equitable 
powers to fashion the relief so that it completely 
remedies the prior dilution of minority voting 
strength and fully provides equal opportunity for 
minority citizens to participate and to elect candi­
dates of their choice. 

Id. at 31 (footnote omitted). 

In this case the District Court, having struck down 
its own prior plan for failing to provide black voters 
with an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, 
failed to exercise "its traditional equitable powers" to 
"completely remedy" this dilution of black voting strength 
by failing fully to provide "equal opportunity for minor­
ity citizens to participate and to elect candidates of their 
choice." In fact, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' pro­
posed plans for the explicit reason that would "probably 
insure the election of a black congressman." 

This determination has very serious implications for 
the large group of voting rights cases currently being 
litigated under Section 2. If black voters in Section 2 
cases are deprived of remedies commensurate with the 
scope of the violation (discriminatory denial to minority 
voters of the opportunity "to elect representatives of 
their choice") , the recently-enacted amendment to Sec­
tion 2 which was designed by Congress to provide minor­
ity voters with a new statutory framework for overcom~ 
ing racial discrimination in voting could well be rendered 
nugatory. 

The District Court also disregarded this Court's deci­
sion in United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 
144 ( 1977), when it condemned plaintiffs' efforts to 
create a 65 percent black district as "an obvious racial 
gerrymander" (App. A, p. 14a). In that case the issue 
was whether the New York Legislature was constitu­
tionally prohibited from creating 65 percent black state 
legislative districts to meet the requirements of Section 
5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Court determined 



16 

that there was no constitutional violation. The Court 
determined that the constitution did not prohibit race­
conscious remedies for dilution of minority voting strength 
"to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being re­
peatedly outvoted by creating districts that will afford 
fair representation to the members of those racial groups 
who are sufficiently numerous and whose residential pat­
terns afford the opportunity of creating districts in which 
they will be in the majority." 430 U.S. at 168 (plurality 
opinion of White, J.) 

Here the District Court's own findings demonstrate 
that merely creating a razor-thin 52.83 percent black 
voting age population majority is not sufficient to "afford 
fair representation" to discriminated-against black Mis­
sissippi voters. The District Court found that the effects 
of past discrimination continue to impede electoral par­
ticipation by black voters in Mississippi. Because of this 
past discrimination, and continued disparities in income, 
education and other socio-economic measures which de­
press minority political participation, black voter regis­
tration and turnout are still disproportionately lower than 
white registration and turnout. Black voters also are 
deprived of opportunities to gain fair representation in 
districts in which they lack a substantial voting majority 
by a "consistently high degree of racially polarized vot­
ing" by white voters. The overwhelming weight of the 
proof and testimony in this case is that this 52.83 per­
cent voting age population majority is simply not enough 
to enable black voters to overcome these enormous and 
continuing barriers to equal black political participation 
in the Delta area. To the extent that the District Court 
may have thought otherwise (App. A, pp. 13a-14a), those 
findings are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the 
evidence and are clearly erroneous.9 

9 For the defendants, Dr. Thomas Hofeller stated that a razor­
thin black V AP majority of 50.13% in the Second District was 
sufficient to insure black voters equal access to the political process. 



17 

The other reasons given by the District Court for re­
jecting plaintiffs' plans also should be rejected. Com­
bining the heavily-black Delta counties with predomi­
nantly-black areas of the City of Jackson should not con­
stitute a serious obstacle to giving black voters an op­
portunity for representation of their choice. All of the 
districts, to some extent, combine urban and rural areas. 
The Fifth District combines the urban Gulf Coast area 
with extremely rural and sparsely-populated areas of 
south Mississippi, and the chairman of the Mississippi 
Legislature's Joint Congressional Redistricting Commit­
tee testified that this was unavoidable and not inconsist­
ent with state policy in congressional redistricting ( 1982 
Trial Transcript, p. 243). In addition, any increase in 
black voting strength in the Second District must neces­
sarily decrease the percentage of blacks in some adjoining 
district. This does not constitute a prohibited dilution of 
black voting strength where the adjoining district does 
not contain a black voting majority. There was literally 
no evidence presented at trial that a decrease in the black 
population percentage in the Fourth District by eight per­
centage points would necessarily make the Fourth District 
Representative insensitive to minority needs (App. A, p. 
14a). 

Tr. at 410, 454. However, he conceded that his figures did not take 
into account the conditions of lower black voter registration, lower 
black turnout, and lesser financial resources for black candidates 
which pervade the State of Mississip·pi and the Deltra. No·r did his 
conclusion account for the advantage of incumbency which white 
Republicans now have in the Second Congressional District. !d. at 
456-463. Moreover, his razor-thin edge would only protect equal ac­
cess, according to his testimony, so long as the white crossover 
voting rate reached at least the level which occurred in the 1982 
general election. Any slippage would render his conclusion invalid. 
ld. Finally, Dr. Hofeller admitted that he had testified in the 
Chicago City Council redistricting case, Ketchum v. Byrne, that 
a district must be 65% black in total population to give black vote·rs 
an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, and that a 
58% black ward was not "a viable black ward." !d. at 465-470. 



18 

II. THE DISTRICT COURT'S PLAN VIOLATES THE 
STRICT GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED FOR 
COURT-ORDERED PLANS BY THIS COURT IN 
CONNOR v. FINCH. 

It is axiomatic that court-ordered redistricting plans 
are judged by stricter standards than those designed by 
legislatures. Connor v. Finch, 413 U.S. 407, 414 ( 1977). 
Two of the areas in which courts must be more careful 
than legislatures are compactness of districts and avoid­
ance of dilution of black voting strength. As this Court 
noted in Connor: 

[T]he District Court ... should either draw legisla­
tive districts that are reasonably continguous and 
compact, so as to put to rest suspicions that Negro 
voting strength is being impermissibly diluted, or ex­
plain precisely why in a particular instance that goal 
cannot be accomplished. 

413 U.S. at 425-426. 

Avoidance of racial vote dilution is also behind a third 
requirement for many court-ordered plans: the use of 
single-membe1r districts instead of multimember districts. 
Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690 (1971); East Carroll 
Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976). 
Among the reasons for this requirement is that multi­
member districts ''tend to submerge electoral minorities 
and overrepresent electoral majorities." Connor v. Finch, 
431 U.S. at 415. While multi-member districting is not 
at issue in this congressional districting case, the reason­
ing underlying the single-member preference adds to the 
court's obligations to avoid the dilution of black voting 
strength in redistricting plans.10 It demonstrates that 

10 In addition to the requisites cited above, court-ordered plans 
must adhere to lower population . deviations, than legislative plans. 
Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 414. The overall deviation in the 
Kirksey Plans was less than one-tenth of one percent. Tr. at 166, 
168. The District Court did not consider the respective deviations 
of its own plan or the Kirksey Plans to be a reason for preferring 
one over the other. 



19 

plans which might otherwise be constitutional and lawful 
if passed by a legislature can nevertheless be an abuse of 
the court's remedial discretion because they do not elimi­
nate the potential for dilution as thoroughly as they 
could. See Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds 
County, Mississippi, 544 F.2d 139, 152 (5th Cir.) (en 
bane) , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968 ( 1977) . 

As noted by the Court in Connor v. Finch, aberrations 
from the goal of compactness may reflect potential dilu­
tions of black voting strength. Id. at 425-426. See also 
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S.--; 103 S.Ct. 2653, 2672-
73 ( 1983). This is particularly true when the district's 
sprawling shape makes it difficult for black candidates­
who are generally poorer than white candidates-to travel 
from one end to the other to campaign. Thus, in Rogers 
v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 627 (1982), the Court left un­
disturbed a lower court conclusion that, "as a matter of 
law, the size of the [district] tends to impair the access 
of blacks to the political process." See also S. Rep. No. 
97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 29 ( 1982) (listing as one 
of the probative factors of a Section 2 dilution case the 
use of "unusually large election districts"). Plaintiffs' 
expert, Senator Henry Kirksey, testified that large con­
gressional districts adversely impinge on the efforts of 
black citizens to attain equal access to the political proc­
ess. December 19-21, 1983 Hearing Transcript at 154-
155. 

Here, the Second District in the court-ordered plan 
constitutes an awkward, elongated north-south sprawl 
which the District Court candidly acknowledged as lack­
ing in compactness. App. A, p. 15a. Moreover, to estab­
lish that district, the District Court rejected the much 
more compact Kirksey Plans which better preserve con­
tinguous concentrations of black voting strength. By 
leaving portions of the City of Jackson out of the Second 
District the court's plan basically "cracks" and divides 
those continguous concentrations and sacrifices any hope 
of compactness. The court has designed a long and 



20 

meandering district which does not come close in terms 
of black population percentage to the levels which plain­
tiffs' expert testimony has shown to be necessary tn give 
black citizens an equal opportunity to elect candidates of 
their choice. Thus, the District Court failed to follow 
Connor's mandate "to make every effort not only to com­
ply with established constitutional standards, but also to 
allay suspicions and avoid the creation of concerns that 
might lead to new constitutional challenges." 431 U.S. at 
425. Because the District Court has failed to adhere to 
the strict standards of compactness and painstaking 
avoidance of dilution of black voting strength, its judg­
ment must be reversed. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, · this Court should note prob­
able jurisdiction of this appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
FRANK R. PARKER* 
PATRICIA M. HANRAHAN 
SIDNEY R. BIXLER 

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR 
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

1400 I Street, N.W. 
Suite400 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 371-1212 

ROBERT BRUCE McDUFF 
University of Mississippi 

Law School 
University, Mississippi 38677 
(601) 232-5483 

JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. 
WALLS, BUCK & IRVING, LTD. 
163 North Broadway Street 
Post Office Box 634 
Greenville, Mississippi 38701 
(601) 335-6001 

Attorneys for Appellants 

* Counsel of Reco·rd 



APPENDICES 





la, 

APPENDIX A 

District Court Opinion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

GREENVILLE DIVISION 

No. GC82-80-WK-O 

DAVID JORDAN, et al., . 
Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WILLIAM WINTER, et al., 
Defendants. 

No. GC82-81-WK-O 

OWEN H. BROOKS, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WILLIAM F. WINTER, et al., 
Defendants. 

(April16, 1984) 

ON REMAND F110M THE 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

Before CLARK, Chief Circuit Judge; SENTER, Chief 
District Judge; and KEADY, Senior District Judge. 



2a 

PER CURIAM: 

On June 8, 1982, this court ordered into effect on an 
interim basis a congressional redistricting plan for the 
State of Mississippi. Jordan v. Winter, 541 F.Supp. 1135, 
1144-45 (N.D. Miss. 1982). On appeal, the United States 
Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment and re­
manded the case for further consideration in light of Sec­
tion 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, --U.S. --, 
103 S.Ct. 2007 (1983). 

This court held an evidentiary hearing in December of 
1983. On the basis of the evidence adduced at trial and 
the pleadings, briefs, and argument of counsel, we con­
cluded that the court-ordered plan, or Simpson Plan, vio~ 
lated amended § 2. The court found that the structure 
of the Second Congressional District in particular unlaw­
fully diluted black voting strength. Accordingly, on Jan­
uary 6, 1984, we entered judgment directing the use, 
until the Mississippi Legislature enacts a valid congres­
sional redistricting plan, of an interim plan fashioned by 
the court with the aid of the parties. Pursuant to the 
reservation set out in that final judgment, we now enter 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of 
that judgment, in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a). 

I. Procedural History 

The history of the legislative and judicial efforts to 
secure a constitutional congressional redistricting pian 
for the State of Mississippi is set out in our prior deci­
sion in Jordan v. Winter, 541 F.Supp. 1135 (N.D. Miss. 
1982). Only a brief summary is required here. 

The 1980 official census revealed a total population dis­
parity in Mississippi's 1972 congressional districting pian 
of 17.6 7o . Recognizing the constitutional problem posed 
by such malapportionment, see U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 2; 
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U:S. 533 ( 1964), the Mississippi 
Legislature in 1981 enacted S.B. 2001 1 for redistricting 

1 1981 Mississippi Laws (Extraordinary Sess.) Ch. 8. 



sa. 

the state's five congressional districts. The Attorney Gen­
eral of the United States, after reviewing the plan pur­
suant to the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c,2 inter­
posed a timely objection on March 30, 1982. The Attor­
ney General found the plan defective because it divided 
the concentration of black majority counties located in 
the northwest or '"Delta" portion of the state among three 
districts rather than concentrating them in a single dis­
trict.3 He concluded that this configuration constituted 
an unlawful dilution of minority voting strength. 

The Mississippi Legislature did not attempt to enact 
another plan or otherwise to obtain preclearance from the 
Attorney General. On April 7, 1982, it filed a declara­
tory judgment action in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia seeking judicial preclear­
ance of S.B. 2001. Mississippi v. Smith, No. 82-0956. 
That action has since been voluntarily dismissed. 

The Jordan and Brooks plaintiffs then filed class actions 
to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 2001 until it was pre­
cleared, to prohibit further use of the 1972 plan because 
of population malapportionment, and to secure a court­
ordered interim plan for the 1982 congressional elections 
and thereafter until change by law. A three--judge dis­
trict court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. 

2 Mississippi is a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, and S.B. 2001 was a change in voting standards., prac­
tices, o·r procedures within the meaning of§ 5. 

3 The Mississippi Delta consists of the following counties: Bo­
livar, Carroll, Coahoma, DeSoto, Grenada, Holmes, Humphre(Y's, 
Issaquena, Leflore, Panola, Quitman, Sharkey, Sunflower, Talla­
hatchie, Tate, Tunica, Warren, Was.hington, and Zazoo. Missis­
sippi's congressional districting plans from 1882 to 1966 all con­
tained a district encompassing most of the Delta counties. 541 F. 
Supp. at 1139 and n.2. Maps depicting the congressional districts 
as they existed under the 1962 plan and under S.B. 2001 are at­
tached. District 2 of the 1962 plan contains most of the Mississippi 
Delta. 



4a~ 

Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 
and 42 U.S.C. § 1973j (f). This court declined to place 
the unprecleared S.B. 2001 into effect on an interim basis 
and concluded that the 1972 plan was unconstitutionally 
malapportioned and therefore also unsuitable for interim 
use. Jordan v. Winter, 541 F.Supp. at 1142. It thus 
limited its consideration to two plans advocated by the 
plaintiffs and one advocated by the AFL-CIO as amicus 
curiae. 

Plaintiffs urged the court to order into effect either of 
two plans devised by Senator Henry J. Kirksey, a black 
state legislator. Both plans kept the Delta area intact 
and achieved black majority districts by combining the 
Delta area with predominantly black portions of Hinds 
County and the City of Jackson. 541 F.Supp. at 1140. 
Plaintiffs' preferred :plan (KirKsey Plan 1) contained 
one district that was 64.37% black; the alternative plan 
(Kirksey Plan 2) contained one district that was 65.81% 
black. Id. The plan urged by the AFL-CIO, the "Simp­
son Plan," combined fifteen Delta and part-Delta counties 
with six predominantly white eastern rural counties to 
produce four majority· white districts and one district 
with a black population majority of 53.77%. ld. at 1141. 
The Kirksey Plan 1 had a total population variance of 
.2150% ; the Kirksey Plan 2 a variance of .230 o/o, and 
the Simpson plan a variance of .2141%. 

The court was bound by Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 
37, 102 S.Ct. 1518 (1982), to fashion an interim plan 
that adhered to the state's political policies to the extent 
those policies did not violate the Constitution or the Vot­
ing Rights Act. 541 F.Supp. at 1141. The court deter­
mined that the following political policies underlay the 
passage of S.B. 2001: 

( 1) Minimal change from 1972 district lines; ( 2) 
least possible population deviation; (3) preservation 
of the electoral base of incumbent congressmen; and 
( 4) establishment of two districts with 40 o/o or bet­
ter black population. 



ld. at 1143. Because the Simpson Plan most nearly ac­
corded with the latter three policies, which the court 
found to be constitutionally and statuto,rily valid,4 we 
ordered it into effect on an interim basis. That plan was 
used for the 1982 congressional elections. It is depicted 
on a map appended to our prior decision, id. at 1146, and 
is statistically described as follows: 

Total 
District Population Deviation %Deviation Black% 

1 604,671 +643 +.1077 26.86 

2 604,697 +669 +.1128 63.77 

3 503,760 -368 - .0729 31.23 

4 503,893 -235 - .0466 45.25 

503,617 -611 -.1013 19.84 

Although the Second District under the Simpson Plan was 
a majority black district (53.77%), it had a. minority 
black voting age population of 48.05%. 

Analysis of the Simpson Plan under the standard es-: 
tablished in amended § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
reveals its invalidity. 

II. Amended Section 2 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 
presently reads: 

Sec. 2 (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite 
to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be 
imposed or applied by any State or political sub­
division in a manner which results in a denial or 
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United 
States to vote on account of race or color, or in con-

4 As to the first policy, the court reeognized that the validity of 
the Attorney General's conclusion that drawing lines fo·r Districts 1, 
2, and 3 from east to west unlawfully diluted black voting strength 
was the primary issue in the proceedings then pending in the Dis­
trict Court of the District of CoJumbia. It therefore accepted, with­
out indicating any view as to its validity, the Atto.rney General's 
conclusion. 541 F.Supp. at 1143. 



6a 

travention of the guarantees set forth in section 
4 (f) ( 2) , as provided in subsection (b) . 

(b) a violation of subsection (a) is established if, 
based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown 
that the political processes leading to nomination or 
election in the State or political subdivision are not 
equally open to participation by members of a class 
of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its 
members have less opportunity than other members 
of the electorate to participate in the political proc­
ess and to elect representatives of their choice. The 
extent to which members of a protected class have 
been elected to office in the State or political sub­
division is one circumstance which may be consid­
ered: Provided, that nothing in this section estab­
lishes a right to have members of a protected class 
elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the 
population. 

42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West Supp. 1983). The amendment 
to Section 2 was designed to eliminate the requirement, 
prescribed in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 
S.Ct. 2332 ( 1980), that a plaintiff demonstrate inten­
tional discrimination to establish a violation of section 2.5 

5 S. 1992 amends Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to 
prohibit any voting practice, or procedure [which] results in 
discrimination. This amendment is designed to make clear that 
proof of discriminatory intent is not required to establish a 
violation of Section 2 .... 

S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code 
Cong. & Ad. News 177 (hereinafter cited as Senate Report). See 
Jones v. City of Lubbock, No. 83-1196 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 1984) ; 
Jordan v. City of Greenwood, 711 F.2d 667, 668-69 (5th Cir. 1983) ; 
Buchanan v. City of Jackson, 708 F.2d 1066, 1072 (6th Cir. 1983); 
Campbell v. Gadsden County School Board, 691 F.2d 978, 981, n.4 
(11th Cir. 1982) ; Seamon v. Upham, CA No. P-81-49-CA (E.D. Tex. 
1983); Major v. Treen, 574 F.Supp. 325, 342 (E.D. La. 1983) ; 
Blumstein, Defining and Proving Race Discrimination: Perspec­
tives on the Purpose v. Results Approach from the Voting Rights 



7a 

We reject the contention of the Republican Defendants 
that Section 2, if construed to reach discriminatory re­
sults, exceeds Congre1ss's enforcement power under the 
fifteenth amendment. We agree with the analysis and 
conclusion set out in Major v. Treen, .574 F.Supp. 325, 
342-349 (E.D. La. 1983) (three judge court), which re­
jected a similar assault on the constitutionality of Section 
2. We therefore adopt that treatment of this issue with­
out repetition here. 

The Senate Judiciary Report on the amendment states 
that the "results" language of new Section 2 was meant 
to "restore the pre- [City of Mobile v.] Bolden legal 
standard which governed cases challenging electoral sys­
tems or practices as an illegal dilution of the, minority 
vote." Senate Report at 27. The Report then enumerates 
the factors courts should consider in deciding whether 
plaintiffs have established a violation of Section 2. These 
factors, derived from the Supreme Court's opinion in 
White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), as applied in 
this Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1287 (5th 
Cir. 1973) (en bane), afj'd on other grounds sub. nom 
East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 
636 (1976), include, but are not limited to: 

1. The extent of any history of official discrimina­
tion in the state or political subdivision that touched 
the right of the members of the minority group to 
register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the 
democratic process; 

Act, 69 Va. L. Rev. 633, 689-70 (1983); Hartman, Racial Vote Dilu­
tion and Separation of Powers: An Exploration of the Conflict 
between the Judicial "Intent" and the Legislative "Results" Stand­
ards, 50 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 689, 726 (1982). 

The Republican Defendants have argued that amended Section 2 
preserves the requirement of proving discriminatory intent. We 
find this argument to be meritless as it runs counter to· the plain 
language of amended § 2, its legislative history, and judicial and 
scholarly interpretation. 



sa: 
2. The extent to which voting is racially polarized; 

3. The extent to which the state or political sub­
division has used unusually large election districts, 
majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provi­
sions, or other voting practices or procedures that 
may enhance the opportunity for discrimination 
against the minority group; 

4. If there is a candidate slating process, whether 
the members of the minority group have been de­
nied access to that process; 

5. The extent to which members of the minority 
group in the state or political subdivision bear the 
effects of discrimination in such areas as education, 
employment and health, which hinder their ability to 
participate e,ffectively in the political process; 

6. Whether political campaigns have been charac­
terized by overt or subtle racial appeals; 

7. The extent to which members of the minority 
group have been elected to public office in the juris­
diction. 

Senate Report at 28-29 (footnotes omitted). The Report 
also cites for consideration, as additional factors proba­
tive of a violation of Section 2: ( 1) whether elected offi­
cials are unresponsive to the needs of minority group 
members; and ( 2) whether the policy underlying the 
challenged procedure is "tenuous." ld. at 29. No particu­
lar number of these factors need be proved. I d. 

III. Amended Section 2 and the Simpson Plan 

The court finds that the aggregate of the following 
factors shows that the Simpson Plan unlawfully dilutes 
minority voting strength. 

A. Past Discrimination 

That Mississippi has a long history of de jure and de · 
facto race discrimination is not contested. That history 



has been often recounted in judicial decisions 6 and in­
cludes the use of such discriminatory devices as poll taxes, 
literacy tests, residency requirements., white primaries, 
and the use of violence to intimidate blacks from register­
ing fo,r the vote. The State is a covered jurisdiction un­
der the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Attorney Gen­
eral has designated 42 of the counties in Mississippi for 
federal registrar enforcement of the right to vote. 

We find that the effects of the historical official dis­
crimination in Mississippi presently impede black voter 
registration and turnout. Black registration in the Delta 
area is s.till disproportionately lower than white registra­
tion. No black has been elected to Congress since the 
Reconstruction period, and none has been elected to state­
wide office in this century. Blacks hold less than ten per­
cent of all elective offices in Mississippi, though they con­
stitute 35% of the state's population and a majority of 
the population of 22 counties. 

The . evidence of socio-economic disparities between 
blacks and whites in the Delta area and the state as a 
whole is also probative of minorities' unequal access to 
the political process in Mississippi.7 Blacks in Mississippi, 

6 See, e.g., United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965) ; 
Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 F.2d 139, 144 (5th Cir. 1977) ; 
Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, 502 F.2d 
621, 624 (5th Cir. 1974), af/'g 361 F.Supp. 603, 605 (N.D. Miss. 
1972); Mississippi v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 569, 575 (D.D.C. 
19'79), aff'd, 444 U.S.1050 (1980). 

7 The courts have recognized that disproP<Jrtionate educational 
emplo·yment, income level and living conditions arising from 
past discrimination tend to d.epress minority political participa­
tions, e.g. White [v. Regester], 412 U.S. at 768; Kirksey v. 
Board of Supervisors, 554 F.2d 139, 145 [(5th Cir. 1977) ]. 
Where these conditions are shown, and where the level of black 
participation in politics is depressed, plaintiffs need not prove 
any further causal nexus between their disparate socio-economic 
status and the depressed level of political participation. 

Senate Report No. 417, 97th Congress 2d Sess. at 29, n.114. 



lOa 

especially in its Delta region, generally have less educa­
tion, lower incomes, and more menial occupations than 
whites. The State of Mississippi has a history of segre­
gated school .systems that provided inferior education to 
blacks. See United States Commission on Civil Rights, 
Voting in Mississippi, pp. 3-4 ( 1965). Census statistics 
indicate lingering effects of this past discrimination: the 
median family income in the Delta Region (Second Dis­
trict) for whites is $17,467, compared to $7,447 for 
blacks; more than half of the adult blacks in the Second 
District have attained only 0 to 8 years of schooling, 
while the majority of white adults in this District have 
completed four years of high school; the unemployment 
rate for blacks is two to three times that for whites; and 
blacks generally live in inferior housing. 

B. Racial Bloc Voting 

Plaintiffs have established that voters in Mississippi 
have previously voted and continue to vote on the basis 
of the race of candidates for elective office. The state de­
fendants had conceded as much prior to the 1982 elec­
tions, but attempted to show at trial that the 1982 cam­
paign in the Second District was not characterized by 
racial bloc voting. The evidence defendants presented was 
that the black Democratic candidate, Robert Clark, re­
ceived approximately 15% of the white vote in the 1982 
general election and that Clark won the Democratic nomi­
nation in a primary contest against white opponents. 
The primary election in the Second District conducted 
under our prior plan was characterized by confusion and 
low voter turnout due to a variety of facto,rs, including 
uncertainty about election dates, the recent realignment 
of the district, and the lack of an incumbent. The race 
was additionally atypical because of a court order allow­
ing Republican voters to participate in the Democratic 
primary. Clark's victory in the primary was followed by 
defeat in the general election-a defeat we find was 
caused in part by racial bloc voting. Plaintiffs' proof, 



lla 

also based on analysis of these election returns, demon­
strated a consistently high degree of racially polarized 
voting in the 1982 election and previous elections. From 
all of the evidence, we conclude that blacks consistently 
lose elections in Mississippi because the majority of voters 
choose their preferred candidates on the basis of race. 
We therefore find racial bloc voting operates to dilute 
black voting strength in Congressional districts where 
blacks constitute a minority of the voting age population. 
Since the Second District under the Simpson Plan does 
not have a majority black voting age population, the 
presence of racial bloc voting in that district inhibits 
black voters from participating on an equal basis with 
white voters in electing representatives of their choice. 
As the Supreme Court held in Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 
613, 623, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 3279 ( 1982) : 

Voting along racial lines allows those elected to ig­
nore black interests without fear of political conse­
quences, and without bloc voting the minority candi­
dates would not lose eleCtions solely because of their 
race. 

C. The State Policies Underlying the Simpson Plan 

This court previously :adopted the Simpson Plan for 
interim use primarily because it conformed to the State 
legislature's policy of favoring the division of the black 
population of the State into two "high impact" districts 
rather than concentrating it into one district. 541 F. 
Supp. at 1143-44. The results test required by Section 2 
precludes dependence on this policy. The combination of 
six predominantly white eastern counties with the Delta 
region's black population, when considered in light of the 
effects of past discrimination on black efforts to partici­
pate in political affairs and the existence· of racially polar­
ized voting, operated to minimize, cancel, or dilute black 
voting strength in the Second District. Kirksey v. Board 
of Supervisors, 554 F.2d at 150; see Major v. Treen, 574 
F.Supp. at 354; Hartman, Racial Vote Dilution and Sepa-



12a 

ration of Powers; An E xploration of the J'ltdicial "In­
tent" and the Legislative "Results" Standards, 50 Geo. 
Wash. L. Rev. 689, 695 (1982). Our previous opinion 
relied on United States v. Forrest Cou,nty Board of Su­
pervisors, 571 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1978), and Wyche v. 
Madison Parish Police Jury, 635 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 
1981). Neither involved evidence of racial bloc voting. 
They are no longer apposite. 

. . 

·D. Other Factors 

Plaintiffs produced other persuasive evidence that the 
political processes in Mississippi were not equally open 
to blacks. Evidence of racial campaign tactics used dur­
ing the 1982 election in the Second District supports the 
conclusion that Mississippi voters are urged to cast their 
baJlots according to race.8 This inducement to racially 
polarized voting opera ted ·to further diminish the already 
unrealistic chance for blacks to be elected in majority 
white voting population districts. 

IV. The Court-Ordered Interim Plan 

In devising a plan to replace our prior plan for the 
impending election, we recognized the obligation to: ( 1) 
achieve the least possible deviation from the one person, 
one. vote ideal, Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 26-27, 95 
S.Ct. 751, 765-66 (1975); (2) design a plan that is not 

,' s One campaign television commercial si>onsored by the white 
candidate whose slogan was "He's one of us" opened and closed 
with a view of Confederate. monuments accompanied by this audio 
messa-ge: 

You know, there's something about Mississippi that outsiders 
will never, ever understand. The way we feel about our family 
and God, and the traditions that we have. There is a new Mis­
sissippi, a Mississippi of new jobs and new opportunity for all 
our citizens-. [video pan of black factory workers] We welcome 
the new, but we must never, ever forget what has gone before. 
[video pan or Confederate monuments] We cannot forget a 
heritage that has been ~cred through our generations. 



13a 

racially discriminatory in either purpose or effect, Mc­
Daniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 148, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 
2235 (1981); and (3) adhere to the state's policies ex­
cept to the extent such policies are violative of either the 
Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, Upham v. Seamon, 
456 U.S. 37, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 1520-21 (1982). 

The plan ordered into effect by our final judgment of 
January 6, 1984, meets these requirements. The statis­
tics of that plan are set out below. 

Percent Total 
Congress- Variance Voting 

sional Total From the Black Age P op. Black % Black 
District Population Norm Populat ion % Bla ck (VAP) VAP VAP 

504,077 -.0101% 124,136 24.63% 346,074 74,165 21.43 % 

2 504,024 -.0206 % 293,838 58.30% 822,719 170,491 52.83 % 

3 504,242 + ·0226% 161,710 32.07% 348,524 98,478 28.26% 

4 504,187 +.0117% 211,714 41.99% 346,370 129,618 37.42 % 

5 504,108 -.0040% 95,808 19;01% 342,754 57,068 16.65% 

Range .0432 

The interim plan was constructed under these criteria: 
create a rural Delta-River area district with a black vot­
ing age population majority; achieve minimal deviation 
from the ideal population per congressional district of 
504,128; create districts containing voters with similar 
interests; preserve the electoral base of incumbents; and 
comply with the legislative goal of achieving high impact 
districts without spHntering cohesive black populations. 

We recognize that the creation of a Delta district with 
a majority black voting age population implicates difficult 
issues concerning the fair allocation of political power. 
See A. Howard & B. Howard, The Dilemma of the Voting­
Rights Act--Recognizing the Emerging Political Equality 
Norm, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1615 (1983). Although the use 
of a race-conscious remedy for discrimination, approved 
by the Supreme Court in United Jewish Organizations v; 
Carey, 430 U.S. 144 ( 1977), can come into tension -with 
Congress' disclaimer in amended § 2 of any right to pro­
portional representation, the plan we have adopted fully 
rectifies the dilution of black voting strength in the ·· Sec-" 



14a 

ond District and satisfies the requirements of amended 
§ 2 without achieving proportional representation for 
blacks in Mississippi. 

The court rejected alternative plans offered by plain­
tiffs which would achieve a significantly higher black vot­
ing age population (approximately 60 o/o) in the Second 
District. Plaintiffs argue that a black voting age popula­
tion of such preponderance is required for blacks to elect 
representatives of their choice. Amended § 2, however, 
does not guarantee or insure desired results, and it goes 
no further than to afford black citizens an equal oppor­
tunity to participate in the political process. In comment­
ing upon the § 2 amendment, Senator Dole, a leading 
sponsor of the compromise legislation, stated: "Citizens 
of all racesare entitled to have an equal chance of elect­
ing candidates . of their choice, but if they are fairly af­
forded that opportunity and lose, the law should offer no 
remedies." Senate Report at 193. In the opinion of this 
court, after considering the totality of the circumstances, 
the creation of a Second District with a clear black vot­
ing age population majority of 52.83% is sufficient to 
overcome the effects of past discrimination and racial 
bloc voting and will provide a fair and equal contest to 
all voters who may participate in congressional elections. 
Credible expert testimony received in this case supports 
this conclusion. Additionally, plaintiffs' plans are an ob­
vious racial gerrymander which would bring into the Sec­
ond District overwhelmingly black sections of the City of 
Jackson and its suburbs; these inner-city, metropolitan 
areas have little in cdmmon with the interests of the pre·­
dominantly rural Delta region. Also, plaintiffs' plans un­
necessarily dilute black voting strength in the Fourth Dis­
trict. The Fourth District presently has a black popula­
tion of 45.25%. The evidence presented indicates this is 
a factor in making the Fourth District representative 
reasonably receptive and sensitive to the needs of the 
black community. The plan adopted necessarily reduces 
the black population of the Fourth District to 41.99%. 



15a 

To furthe·r reduce the black population in the Fourth Dis­
trict to 33.7 or 33.83% as proposed by plaintiffs (541 F. 
Supp. at 1140) would diminish the impact of black voters 
in that district. Although the plans proposed by plaintiffs 
would probably insure the election of a black congress­
men in the Second District, the attempt to gain this elec­
tion guaranty, which § 2 (b) expressly disclaims, would 
have a certain adverse effect on the impact of the black 
voters in the Fourth District. Because of these considera­
tions, we conclude that a black voting age population ma­
jority of 52.83 o/o achieved under the court's plan will 
remedy the defect we now perceive in the Simpson Plan 
under the amended § 2. 

We are cognizant that our court-ordered interim plan 
does not provide a compact geographical configuration for 
the Second District. However, it consists of rural Delta 
and river counties with similarities of interest; avoids 
gerrymandering a substantial portion of metropolitan 
Jackson into a district with these rural or farm counties; 
and yields the least adverse impact on the black voting 
influence in the Fourth District. 

A specific description of the five congressional districts 
as established in our final judgment of January 6, 1984, 
and map outlining these districts, are attached. 

/s/ C.C. 

/s/ L.T.S.Jr. 

/s/ W.C.K. 



,l ... 

t 
il 

E 

LJ_, ___ ; 
! ,.._._. • : z [-
l v~--

• ! 

. ____ ...... 

0 

~- l ! . i 

: .. ,.. 

, .. 

MISSISSIPPI 
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

1962 

~ . .. , 
~.::.. 

_.,._!' ·: ____ ;_______ __ ; ___ . __ 
.r • 

,J...... ', 

!+- ' '·----------,---... . ' . ; 
· , 

GUL F OF ltl£ :tiC O 

< 



17a 

& " " & 

'l-~· ' __ o 

;·--· .. ..._,._.~~ . ..., 
"·..-----~''-~ 0 ; 

~, . - :--: --0--
, ..J 

WNIIm ~ 
I 

!-------, I !-~--- r--'1 ! 'L· ,_ __ _.~~----t 
! 

~ 
~ ~ 

.:r·-t ...................... o~- r''---,-..... ---1 
t• • ;--

-- ! !-! -
... 

" 

MISSISSIPPI 
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

SENATE BILL 2001 

- -
-

- -

0 -----. 
---: -------: 

! : 
! : 

.. 

.. 



18a 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED 
BY FINAL JUDGMENT OF JANUARY 6, 1984 

The boundaries of all counties, supervisors' districts, 
and precincts listed below shall be such boundaries as they 
existed on July 1, 1981 (see 541 F.Supp. 1135 at 1145, 
N.D. ·Miss. 1982), with the exception of the supervisors' 
districts and precincts of Jones County. Jones County 
supervisors' districts and precincts referred to are those 
defined and incorporated in the Consent Judgment en­
tered on October 26, 1983, by the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Cause 
No. H-83-0200 (R) styled Jones County Branch, NAACP 
v. Jones County, Mississippi. 
District No. 1 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Alcorn Itawamba 
Behton Lafayette 
Calhoun Lee 
Chickasaw Marshall 
DeSoto Monroe 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Chop;taw County 

Panola County 

Tallahatchie County 

Montgomery Tishomingo 
Pontotoc Union 
Prentiss Webster 
Tate Yalobusha 
Tippah 

All except for the Panhandle precinct; 

All except for the precincts of Crenshaw, 
Curtis, East Crowder, Longtown, Pleasant 
Grove, and South Curtis; 

All pre,cincts located in Supervisors' Dis­
tricts 1, 2, and 3. 

Distiict No; 2 shall co~sist of the following whole counties: . 

Bolivar Holmes Leflore Tunica 
Carroll Humphreys Qu itman Warren 
Claiborne ;Issaquena Sharkey Washington 
Coahoma ;Jefferson Sunflower Yazoo 
Grenada 

~~ ' 
together with the following ~arts ,of counties 

Attala County ' The precincts of McAdams, : Newport, Sal­
lis, Shrock, and Possum neck; 

Hinds County The precincts of Bolton, Brownsville, 
Cayuga, Chapel" Hill, Dry Grove, Edwards, 
Learned, Pinehaven, Pocahontas, Ray­
mond 1, Raymond 2, Tinnin, Utica 1, and 
Utica 2; 

Madison County All except the precinct of Ridgeland; 

Panola County The precincts of Crenshaw, Curtis, East 
Crowder, Longtown, Pleasant Gr~ve, and 
South Curtis; 

Tallahatchie County All precincts located in Supervisors' Dis­
trict 4 and 5. 



District No. 3 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Clarke 
Clay 
Jasper 
Kemper 

Lauderdale 
Leake 
Lowndes 
Neshoba 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Attala County 

Choctaw County 

Jones County 

Madison County 

Rankin County 

Newton 
Noxubee 
Oktibbeha 

Scott 
Smith 
Winston 

All except for the precincts of McAdams, 
Newport, Sallis, Shrock, and P ossumneck; 

The Panhandle precinct; 

AU new precincts located in new Super­
visors Districts Nos. 1, 2, and 5; 

The New Blackwell precinct in new Super­
visors' District No. 4; and 

All of new Supervisors' District 3 except 
the new precincts of Glade, Ovett, and 
Tuckers; 

The Ridgeland precinct; 

All except for the precincts of Cato, Clear 
Branch, County Line, Dobson, Dry Creek, 
Johns, Mountain Creek, Puckett, and Star. 

District No. 4 shall cons ist of the following whole counties: 

Adams 
Amite 
Copiah 
Covington 

Franklin 
Jeff. Davis 
~awrence 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Hinds County 

Rankin County 

Lincoln 
Marion 
Pike 

Simpson 
Walthall 
Wilkinson 

All except the precincts of Bolton, Browns­
ville, Cayuga, Chapel Hill, Dry Grove, 
Edwards, Learned, Pinehaven, Pocahontas 
Raymond 1, Raymond 2, Tinnin, Utica 1, 
and U tica 2. 

The precincts of Cato, Clear Branch, 
County Line, Dobson, Dry Creek, Johns, 
Mountain Creek, Puckett, and Star. 

District No. 5 shall consist of the following whole count ies: 

Forrest 
George 
Greene 

Hancock 
Harrison 
Jackson 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Jones County 

Lamar 
Pearl River 
Perry 

Perry 
Stone 
Wayne 

All new precinc'ts in new Supervisors' 
District 4 except the new Blackwell Pre­
cinct; and In new Supervisors' District 3, 
the new precincts of Glade, Ovett, and 
Tuckers. 



20a 

The statistics for each of the five congressional districts 
defined above are as follows: 

P ercent Total 
Congres- Variance Voting 

sional Total from the Black Age Pop. Black %Black 
District Population Norm Population %Black (VAP) VAP VAP 

1 504,077 -.0101 % 124,136 24.63% 346,074 74,165 21.43% 

2 504,024 -.0206 % 293,838 58.30% 322.719 170,491 52.83% 

3 504,242 + .0226% 161,710 32.07% 348,524 98,478 28.26% 

4 504,187 +.0117% 211,714 41.99% 346,370 129,618 37.42% 

5 504,108 - .0040% 95,808 19.01% 342,754 57,068 16.65% 

Range .0432 



z 

21a: 

; 

: 
' ! 

.~ : 

""""----'' ; 

... -' - ' 

~~~-Jr~--~ 

' 
'­"---.-

#··--1 

! -i -+! ~ ~ ._;---.,; 
_ ... -~.-:: .......... ----·-~--....; 

\ 
-.nlll!ll"; ....... _ 

; -- ·-

·---.: 

;......, : 
' ' 

JVo~;.._ __ o __ ..;_ ____ .;.__...,!_~ __ ....;."""'""'---~~ws ___ ;~ ---~ 

MISSISSIPPI 
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

FINAL JUDGMENT 
JANUARY 6~ 1984 

0 ULT OF' IISZICO 



22a 

APPENDIX B 

District Court Judgment. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

GREENVILLE DIVISION 

Civil Action No. GC 82-80-WK-0 

DAVID JORDAN and SAMMIE CHESTNUT, on behalf of the 
Greenwood Voters League, Individually and on behalf 
of others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WILLIAM WINTER, Governor of Mississippi; T.H. CAMP­
BELL, III, Chairperson, BILL HARPOLE, Vice-Chairper­
son, J.C. "CoN" MALONEY, Secretary, and their succes­
sors in office, Joint Congressional Redistricting Com­
mittee; BRAD DYE, Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi 
and President of the Senate; and CLARENCE B. "BUD­
DIE" NEWMAN, Speaker of the House of Representa­
tives, 

Defendants. 



23a 

Civil Action No. GC 82-81-WK-0 

OWEN H. BROOKS, SARAH H. JOHNSON, REV. HAROLD R. 
MAYBERRY, WILLIE LONG, ROBERT E. YOUNG, 'J'HOMAS 
MORRIS, CHARLIE McLAURIN, SAMUEL McCRAY, ROBERT 
JACKSON, REV. CARL BROWN, JUNE E. JOHNSON, and 
LEE ETHEL HENRY, individually and on behalf of oth­
ers similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 
v. 

WILLIAM F. WINTER, Governor of Mississippi; EDWIN L. 
PITTMAN, successor in office to William A. "Bill" Allain, 
Attorney General of Mississippi; DICK MoLPUS, succes­
sor in office to Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Secretary of 
State of Mississippi, in their official capacities and as 
members of the Mississippi State Board of Election 
Commissioners; STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMIS­
SIONERS, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMIT­
TEE, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 

Defendants. 

(January 6, 1984) 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

Before CLARK, Chief Circuit Judge, SENTER, Chief 
Judge, and KEADY, Senior Judge: 

BY THE COURT: 

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme· Court of the 
United States of May 16, 1983, vacating the judgment 
and order of the district court entered June 10, 1982, and 
remanding the cases for further consideration in light of 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1973, as amended June 29, 1982, -- U.S. - - , 77 



24a 

L.Ed.2d 291 (1983) (Mem.), the district court recon­
vened, received additional oral and documentary evidence, 
and considered briefs and argument of counsel. In its 
bench ruling (appended hereto as Addendum "A"), the 
court found that the congressional redistricting plan it 
previously adopted violates amended Section 2, particu­
larly as to the structure of the Second Congressional Di&­
trict. Therefore, the court-ordered redistricting plan pre­
viously entered must be revised. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED: 

That until a redistricting plan is duly enacted by the 
State of Mississippi and precleared in accordance with 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 
the five Mississippi congressional districts for the election 
of members of the United States House of Representa­
tives in the primary and general elections for 1984 and 
thereafter are established as detailed on Addendum "B" 
hereto. A map depicting the foregoing court'-ordered con­
gressional redistricting plan is also appended hereto as 
Addendum "C". 

The Court reserves the power to issue supplemental 
directions and orders should the need arise, to carry out 
the provisions of this judgment. The court also reserves 
the right to file an opinion at a later date. 

This 6th day of January, 1984. 

I sj Charles Clark 
United States Circuit Judge 

/s/ L. T . .Senter, Jr. 
United States District Judge 

/s/ William C. Keady 
United States District Judge 

I 



253: 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

Announced December 21, 1983 

BY JUDGE CLARK: 

Ladies and Gentlemen. The court has come to a deci­
sion which must be implemented with the assistance of 
the parties in the case because the court does not have the 
expertise or the precise figures to make a final judgment. 
Until such time as the Legislature of the State of Mis­
sissippi discharges its duty to redistrict the Congressional 
Districts of the State of Mississippi in accordance with 
the 1980 census, the court must act under the remand of 
the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider its 
prior decision in this case in light of the reenacted Sec­
tion 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

The court finds that the plaintiffs have shown by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the totality of the 
circumstances show that the political processes in District 
2 in particular are not equally open to participation by 
members of a class protected by Section 2. (A) of the 
amended Act in that the members of that class have less 
opportunity than other members of the electorate to par­
ticipate in the political processes and to elect representa­
tives of their choice. 

' . . 
In order to guide the parties in assisting the court to 

draw a precise decree, the court announces the following 
guidelines. I'll ask the derk at this time to hand to each 
of the parties two lists prepared by the court which re­
late to District 2. 

ADDENDUM "A" 

The Second Congressional District of the State of Mis­
sissippi will be comprised of the following whole coun­
ties: Bolivar, Carroll, Claiborne, Coahoma, Grenada, 
Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jefferson, Quitman, 
Sharkey, Sunflower, Tunica, Washington, Yazoo, Warren, 



26a 

and Leflore. In addition, the following precincts from the 
following counties: 

Hinds County-the precincts of Bolton, Browns.ville, 
Edwards, Tinnin, Pocahontas, Pinehaven, Raymond 
1 & 2, Cayuga, Utica 1 & 2, Chapel Hill, Dry Grove, 
and Learned. 

Tallahatchie County-the precincts of Tippo, Philipp, 
Glendora, Tutwiler, Sumner, Webb, and Stover. 

Attala County-the precincts of Shrock, Possumneck, 
Sallis, McAdams, and Newport. 

Madison County-all of the county except the Ridge­
land precinct. 

The remaining Congressional District boundaries are 
to be drawn with the assistance of the parties, with the 
following directions from the court: 

1. Minimize the deviation and variation between all 
districts. 

2. Preserve incumbent representatives where possi­
ble. 

3. Maximize the black population in District 4 un­
der the following two guidelines: 

( 1) Create relatively regular district lines. 

(2) Maintain areas of common interest within 
the same Congressional Districts .. 

The court does not have access to the expertise that 
the parties have immediate access to in the form of demo­
graphers and actual ,precinct populations by race. It is 
the court's best estimate, based upon the information that 
it does have, that the total population of District 2 will 
be 503,831 persons; that the total black population of that 
district will be approximately 57.8 percent; and that the 
total voting age black population of that district will be 
approximately 52.9 percent. 



27a 

ADDENDUM "B" 

The boundaries of all counties, supervisors' districts., 
and precincts listed below shall be such boundaries as 
they existed on July 1, 1981 (see 541 F.Supp. 1135 at 
1145, N.D. Miss. 1982), with the exception of the super­
visors' districts and precincts of Jones County. Jones 
County supervisors' districts and precincts referred to are 
those defined and incorporated in the Consent Judgment 
entered on October 26, 1983, by the United States Dis­
trict Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in 
Cause No. 8-83-0200 (R) styled Jones County Branch, 
NAACP v. Jones County, Mississippi. 
District No. 1 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Alcorn Itawamba 
Benton La.fayette 
Calhoun Lee 
Chickasaw Marshall 
DeSoto Monroe 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Choctaw County 

Panola County 

Tallahatchie County 

Montgomery Tishomingo 
Pontotoc Union 
Prentiss '\\'ebster 
Tate Yalobusha 
T ippah 

All except for the Panhandle Precinct; 

All except for the precincts of Crenshaw, 
Curtis, East Crowder, Longtown, Pleasant 
Grove, and South Curtis; 

All precincts located in Supervisors' Dis­
tricts 1, 2 and 3. 

District No. 2 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Bolivar Holmes 
Carroll Humphreys 
Claiborne Issaquena 
Coahoma J'efferson 
Grenada 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Attala County 

Hinds County 

Madison County 

Panola County 

Tallahatchie County 

Leflore Tunica 
Quitman Warren 
Sharkey Washington 
Sunfiower Yazoo 

The precincts of McAdams, Newport, Sallis, 
Shrock, and Possumneck; 

The precincts of Bolton, Brownsville, 
Cayuga, Chapel Hill, Dry Grove, Edwards, 
Learned, Pinehaven, Pocahontas, Raymond 
1, Raymond 2, Tinnin, Utica 1, and Utica 
2 ; 

All except the precinct of Ridgeland; 

The precincts of Crenshaw, Curtis, East 
Crowder, Longtown, Pleasant Grove, and 
South Curtis; 

All precincts located in Supervisors' Dis­
trict 4 and 5. 



28a 

District No. 3 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Clarke 
Clay 
Jasper 
Kemper 

Lauderdale 
Leake 
Lowndes 
Nesoha 

togethPr with the following parts . of counties: 

Attala County 

Choctaw County 

·Jones Comity 

Madison County 

Rankin County 

Newton 
Noxubee 
Oktibbeha 

Scott 
Smith 
Winston 

All except for the precincts of McAdam, 
Newport, Sallis, Shrock, and Possumneck; 

The Panhandle precincts; 
"' All new precincts located in new Super-

visors Districts Nos. l, 2, and 5;-

The new Blackwell Precinct in new Super­
·visors' District No. 4; and 

All of new Supervisors' District 3 except 
the new precincts of Glade, Ovett, and 
Tuckers; 

The Ridgeland precinct; 

All except for the precincts of Cato, Clear 
Branch, County Line, Dobson, Dry Creek, 

_Johns, Mountain Creek, Puckett, and Star. 

District No •. 4 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Adams 
Amite 
Copiah 
Covington 

Franklin 
Jeff. Davis 
Lawrence 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Hinds County 

Rankin County . 

Lincoln 
Marion 
Pike 

Simpson 
Walthall 
Wilkinson 

All except the precincts of Bolton, Browns­
ville, Cayuga, Chapel Hill, Dry Grove, Ed­
wards, Learned, Pinehaven, Pocahontas, 
Raymond 1, Raymond 2, Tinnin, Utica l, 
and Utica 2. 

The precincts of Cato, Clear Branch, 
County Line, Dobson, Dry Creek, 'Johns, 
Mountain Creek, Puckett, and Star. 

District No. 5 shall consist of the following whole counties: 

Forrest 
George 
Greene 

Hancock 
Harrison 
Jackson 

together with the following parts of counties: 

Jones County 

Lamar 
·Pearl River 
Perry 

Perry 
Soone 
Wayne 

All new precincts in new Supervisors' Dis­
trict 4 except the new Blackwell Precinct; 
and in new Supervisors' District 3, ·the new 
precincts of Glade, Ovett, and Tuckers. 



29a 

The .statistics for each of the five congressional districts 
defined above are as follows: 

Percent . Total 
Congres- Variance Voting 

sional Total from the Black Age Pop. Black % Black 
District Population Norm Population % Black (YAP) YAP VAP 

1 504,077 -.0101 % 124,136 24.63% 346,074 74,165 21.43% 

2 504,024 -.0206% 293,838 58.30% 322.719 170,491 52.83% 

3 504,242 +.0226% 161,710 32.07% 348,524 98,478 28.26% 

4 504,187 +.0117% 211,714 41.99% 846,870 129,618 87.42% 

5 504,108 - .0040% 95,808 19.01% 342,754 57,068 16.65% 

Maximum Range .0432 



30a 

MISSISSIPPI 

. ___ .. ..; ..... 



31a 

APPENDIX C 

Notice of Appeal 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

GREENVILLE DIVISION 

No. GC82-80-WK -0 

DAVID JORDAN, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

WILLIAM WINTER, et al., 
Defendants. 

( 

No. GC82-81-WK-O 

OWEN H. BROOKS, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

WILLIAM F. WINTER, et al., 
Defendants. 

[Filed Feb. 15, 1984] 



32a 

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Owen H. Brooks, 
Thomas Morris, Samuel McCray, Robert L. Jackson, and 
Rev. Carl Brown, plaintiffs in Brooks v. Winter, Civil 
No. GC-82-81-WK-0, hereby appeal to the Supreme Court 
of the United States from the Final Judgment entered in 
this action on January 6, 1984. 

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Frank R. Parker 
FRANK R. PARKER 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
PATRICIA M . HANRAHAN 
SIDNEY R. BIXLER 

Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law 

1400 Eye Street, N.W., 
Su.400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 371-1212 

JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. 
Walls, Buck & Irving, Ltd. 
163 North Broadway Street 
Post Office Box 634 
Greenville, Mississippi 38701 
(601) 335-6001 

ROBERT BRUCE McDUFF 
University of Mississippi 

Law School 
University, Mississippi 38677 
( 601) 232-5483 

Attorneys for Brooks Plaintiffs 



33a 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day mailed, postage 
prepaid, a copy of Brooks Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal to 
the Supreme Court of the United States to the following 
counsel: 

Alvin 0. Chambliss, Esq. 
Leonard McClellan, Esq. 
N. Miss. Rural Legal Svcs. 
P.O. Box 928 
Oxford, MS 38655 

Willie Perkins, Esq. 
N. Miss. Rural Legal Svcs. 
P.O. Box 1909 
Greenwood, MS 38930 

Bill Allain, Attorney General 
William S. Boyd, Sp. Assist. 

Attorney General 
P.O. Box 220 
Jackson, MS 39205 

J erris Leonard, Esq. 
Kathleen Heenan McGuan, Esq. 
La.w Office of J erriSI Leopard, 

P.C. 
900 17th St., N.W., Su.1020 
Washington,D.C.20006 

Champ Terney, Esq. 
Hubbard T. Saunders, IV, Esq. 
Nicki Martinson, Esq. 
Crosthwait, Terney, Noble, 

& Eastland 
1164 Deposit Guaranty Plaza 
Jackson, MS 39201 

R. Scott Levanway, Esq. 
P.O. Box 1429 
Jackson, MS 39205 

Danny E. Cupit, Esq. 
Miss. Democratic Executive 

Committee 
P.O. Box 22666 
Jackson, MS 39205 

Michael Wallace, Esq. 
Jones, Mock bee & Bass 
P.O. Box 55507 
Jackson, MS 39216 

John L. Maxey, II 
Cupit & Maxey 
P.O. Box 22666 
Jackson, MS 39205 

Mississippi Republican 
Executive Committee 

518 E. Capitol St., 4th Floor 
Jackson, MS 39205 

This the 13th day of February, 1984. 

/s/ Frank R. Parker 
FRANK R. PARKER 












	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0001
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0002
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0003
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0004
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0005
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0006
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0007
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0008
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0009
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0010
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0011
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0012
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0013
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0014
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0015
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0016
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0017
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0018
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0019
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0020
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0021
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0022
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0023
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0024
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0025
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0026
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0027
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0028
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0029
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0030
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0031
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0032
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0033
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0034
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0035
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0036
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0037
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0038
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0039
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0040
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0041
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0042
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0043
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0044
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0045
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0046
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0047
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0048
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0049
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0050
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0051
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0052
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0053
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0054
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0055
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0056
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0057
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0058
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0059
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0060
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0061
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0062
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0063
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0064
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0065
	LDFA-03_gin-t2_29_0066