Branch v. Smith

2003-03-31

Headline: Court upheld a federal court’s injunction blocking Mississippi’s state-court redistricting plan and allowed a federal court to impose single-member districts instead of at‑large elections, affecting the 2002 congressional contests.

Holding: The Court ruled that the District Court properly enjoined Mississippi’s state-court map because it lacked preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and properly adopted single‑member districts rather than ordering at‑large elections.

Real World Impact:

Confirms DOJ can pause §5’s 60‑day review by requesting additional information.
Allows federal courts to draw single‑member districts when states fail to redistrict.
Keeps at‑large elections as a narrow last resort when redistricting is infeasible.

Topics: congressional redistricting, Voting Rights Act preclearance, federal courts and elections, single-member districts

Summary

Background

Mississippi lost a congressional seat after the 2000 census, but the state legislature did not pass a new map. A state chancery court drew a plan and the state attorney general submitted it to the Department of Justice for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. A federal three-judge court worried the plan would not be cleared in time, drafted its own map, set a deadline, and then enjoined the state plan when timely preclearance did not occur.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined two main questions: whether the state-court plan became enforceable by operation of law under the Voting Rights Act, and whether a federal court must order at‑large elections or may draw single‑member districts. The Court held that the DOJ’s request for additional information lawfully paused the 60‑day review period and that, after the federal court enjoined the state plan, the State was no longer “seeking to administer” it, so no automatic preclearance occurred. The Court therefore affirmed the injunction and vacated the District Court’s alternative constitutional holding. It also explained that the 1967 statute requiring single‑member districts applies to courts drawing remedial plans, while the statute authorizing at‑large elections is a limited last resort.

Real world impact

The decision meant Mississippi used the federal court’s single‑member map for the 2002 elections and signaled that federal courts can step in to draw single‑member districts when a State fails to redistrict in time. It also clarified that DOJ requests for more information pause the §5 preclearance clock, and that at‑large elections remain a narrow fallback only when timely redistricting is impossible.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices wrote separate opinions. One Justice argued the 1967 law fully replaced the older stopgap statute; another insisted the plain text of the stopgap statute required at‑large elections when a plan is not yet effective. These views highlight a statutory disagreement about remedies.