Term: 2002
Docket: 01-1437
Beatrice Branch, Et Al. v. John Robert Smith Et Al.
- Pro
01-1437 BRANCH v. SMITH Ruling below: SD Mississippi, 189 F. Supp.2d 548. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Article I, § 4 of the United States 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 from that in force and effect on November 1, 1964" (to quote Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c), such that the mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be precleared by the United States 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 (to quote Section 5) "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 sixty 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? 01-1596 SMITH v. BRANCH Ruling below: SD Miss, 189 F. Supp.2d 548. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, as its plain language declares, 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)(5) 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." PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED: 6/10/02 Consolidated for one hour oral argument.
In the case of Beatrice Branch et al. v. John Robert Smith et al., 2002, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over redistricting in Mississippi following the 2000 census. The city council of Jackson had adopted a plan that divided the city into seven wards, each to be represented by one council member elected only by residents of that ward (a "single-member district" system). A group of African American voters challenged this plan under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act, arguing it diluted their voting strength and prevented them from electing representatives of their choice. They proposed an alternative plan with two multi-member districts which they believed would provide better representation for minority voters. The District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and ordered implementation of their proposed plan but on appeal, Fifth Circuit reversed this decision stating that plaintiffs failed to show how single-member district system was less favorable than multi-member one. The Supreme Court declined to review this ruling thereby upholding Fifth Circuit's decision.
In the dissenting opinion for Beatrice Branch, et al. v. John Robert Smith et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mississippi's redistricting plan was flawed because it failed to consider whether or not race was a predominant factor in drawing district lines. He contended that evidence suggested racial considerations were indeed primary in shaping District 23 and thus violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for relying on an incorrect standard of review which allowed them to ignore compelling evidence of racial gerrymandering. In his view, this case should have been remanded back to lower courts for further examination using proper standards.
