Connor v. Johnson
Headline: Mississippi election rules changed: Court orders Hinds County redrawn into single-member legislative districts by June 14, 1971, and extends the candidate filing deadline for that county.
Holding: The Court granted a stay until June 14, 1971, directed the District Court to create single-member legislative districts for Hinds County, extended that county’s candidate filing deadline, and denied relief under the Voting Rights Act.
- Requires Hinds County to use single-member legislative districts by June 14, 1971.
- Postpones and extends the candidate filing deadline for Hinds County elections.
- Forces candidates to run in smaller districts rather than countywide contests.
Summary
Background
A three-judge federal court in Mississippi struck down the State’s recent legislative redistricting plan because district populations varied too much. The parties offered plans; applicants proposed single-member districts for Hinds County. The District Court instead adopted a plan using multi-member countywide districts for Hinds County and set a June 4 filing deadline for candidates. The State court’s plan prompted applicants to seek a stay and a later filing deadline from this Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined whether the District Court had time to draw single-member districts before the filing deadline. The applicants showed they had prepared four single-member plans using 1970 Census maps and population figures. The Court said single-member districts are generally preferable and concluded the District Court had enough time to prepare such a plan by June 14. The Court therefore stayed the lower court’s judgment until June 14, instructed the District Court to implement single-member districts for Hinds County by that date, and directed an appropriate extension of the June 4 filing deadline. The Court denied applicants’ request for relief under the Voting Rights Act because that Act does not apply to a federal court decree.
Real world impact
The order requires Hinds County to be divided into individual legislative districts for the 1971 election, forces candidates and voters to adjust plans, and delays the local filing deadline so campaigns and ballots can reflect new districts. This ruling was an emergency stay and interim direction, not a final merits decision.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented, arguing the late change disrupts elections, creates confusion for candidates and voters, and that the Court should not upset local election procedures on short notice.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?