Branch v. Smith
Plaintiffs are Mississippi registered voters who filed suit against the Mississippi
Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Governor, as well as the Mississippi
Republican and Democratic Executive Committees. The plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief to ensure that the State of Mississippi has in place a constitutional
congressional redistricting plan in time to comply with the March 1, 2002, candidate
qualification deadline. A three-judge panel asserted jurisdiction and enjoined
the defendants from implementing the congressional redistricting plan adopted
by a state chancery court on alternative grounds: either (1) the plan adopted
by the state failed to be timely precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
or (2) the plan adopted by the state violates Article I, Section 4 of the U.S.
Constitution.
Questions Presented:
1. Does Article I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution deprive state courts of general
jurisdiction of all power in congressional redistricting cases in the many states
where no state statute explicitly speaks of such power?
2. If a state court, in the course of adhering to developments in the law,
assumes jurisdiction and hears a type of voting rights case it has never heard
before, does it thereby ”enact or seek to administer [a] voting qualification
or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect
to voting different form [sic] that in force and effect on November
1, 1964,” as stated in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, such that the
mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be
precleared by the U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court for the
District of Columbia under Section 5?
3. Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities
has ”been submitted” to the Attorney General and the Attorney General
has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, may
a federal district court nevertheless prevent enforcement and extend the statutory
60-day review period on the basis of the Attorney General's request for additional
information if the information sought is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Section
5 retrogression evaluation?
4. Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a(5) [sic] requires
a state whose representation in Congress has been reduced after a census to
elect its Representatives ”from the State at large”...”[u]ntil
a state is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof.”
Decisions under Review: Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.
Miss. 2002); Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 503 (S.D. Miss. 2002)
(No free link available)
Supreme Court opinion
|
