Floyd Siggers v. Tunica County Board of Supervisors
Headline: Voting-rights challengers sought to block Tunica County’s new redistricting election, but the Court denied their emergency request, allowing the county to go ahead with the scheduled election while appeals continue.
Holding:
- Allows Tunica County to proceed with its scheduled election despite unresolved preclearance dispute.
- Makes it harder for challengers to halt imminent elections via emergency relief.
- Keeps the underlying Voting Rights Act dispute available for later appeal.
Summary
Background
Residents and voting-rights challengers sued to stop Tunica County from using a new reapportionment and electoral plan in an upcoming election. The county submitted the plan to the Department of Justice on May 14 for approval required by the Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department asked for more information on June 24, then on July 12 said it would consider supplemental material and issue a decision by September 3. On September 3 the Department denied approval, finding the county had not shown the plan lacked a discriminatory purpose or effect. A three-judge District Court denied the challengers’ request to enjoin the election, and the challengers then sought emergency relief in this Court.
Reasoning
The core question was whether challengers could get an immediate injunction to stop the election while the dispute over federal approval remained unresolved. The Court denied the application for an injunction and stay presented to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court. The opinion explains that the District Court mistakenly believed the plan was automatically approved after 60 days; but the Justice Department had properly extended consideration when it requested more information, so the plan was not precleared. The District Court also erred in refusing to enjoin on the ground that the election preparations had already begun, a rationale that the Court previously rejected.
Real world impact
Because the emergency request was denied, the county may proceed with its scheduled election while legal challenges continue. Challengers argued they acted promptly and that the county continued preparations despite notice the plan might be denied. The denial of emergency relief is not a final decision on the merits and the underlying legal dispute can still be decided later.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor, dissented and would have granted the stay, finding a fair prospect of success and that the equities favored the challengers.
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?