In the case of Connor et al. v. Waller, Governor of Mississippi, et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on whether a three-judge district court panel should have abstained from deciding on a challenge to Mississippi's legislative reapportionment plan until state courts had an opportunity to interpret it first. The appellants were voters who claimed that the apportionment scheme violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by diluting their votes compared with other districts in the state. The Supreme Court held that federal courts are not required to abstain from constitutional litigation pending interpretation of underlying state laws by state courts unless there is an uncertain issue of state law which could potentially avoid or modify the constitutional question raised. In this case, no such uncertain issue existed and thus there was no need for abstention.

In the dissenting opinion for Connor et al. v. Waller, Governor of Mississippi, et al., Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a three-judge district court panel to review Mississippi's reapportionment plan was incorrect and violated precedent set by prior Supreme Court rulings. He contended that under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, any changes in voting procedures in states with a history of discrimination must be approved either by the Attorney General or by a three-judge District Court in Washington D.C., not just any federal district court panel as had been allowed here. In his view, this requirement was intended to prevent discriminatory practices from being implemented while they were still under legal review - something he believed could happen if local courts were permitted to approve these changes instead.