Connor v. Coleman
Headline: Long-delayed Mississippi legislative redistricting is pushed forward as the Court allows an emergency petition and tells the trial court to set a quick schedule for final reapportionment and special elections.
Holding: The Court granted permission to seek an emergency mandamus order, continued consideration to June 17, 1976, and directed the District Court to hold a 30-day hearing and adopt a permanent reapportionment plan and related special elections.
- Requires the trial court to hold a hearing within 30 days and adopt a final redistricting plan.
- Orders any needed special elections to be held with the November 1976 federal elections.
- Accelerates resolution of long-running Mississippi legislative reapportionment disputes.
Summary
Background
A group seeking faster resolution, supported by the United States, asked permission to file an emergency petition after ten years of litigation over Mississippi’s legislative district lines. Federal judges and the State have tried multiple plans since 1966. The District Court approved and delayed various plans and postponed a final decision while awaiting other Supreme Court rulings, leaving Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties still in multimember districts and elections unsettled.
Reasoning
The Court granted leave to file the petition for an extraordinary order and continued consideration to June 17, 1976, on the expectation that the District Court will follow the views expressed. The opinion said there is no longer a reason to delay final action because related Supreme Court decisions have been issued. The Court instructed the District Court to hold a hearing within 30 days on proposed permanent reapportionment plans, enter a final judgment establishing a permanent plan for the 1979 elections, and order any needed special elections to coincide with the November 1976 Presidential and congressional elections or as soon thereafter as practicable.
Real world impact
If the District Court follows the Court’s directions, Mississippi will get a court-approved, permanent reapportionment plan for future elections and may hold special elections tied to the 1976 federal elections. That will affect how voters in the State, and especially in the named counties, choose their state legislators.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice concurred in granting the motion but would have denied the extraordinary writ, trusting the District Court to act. Another Justice dissented, criticizing the majority for effectively ordering relief without fully deciding the mandamus petition and for overstepping by prescribing detailed actions.
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?