Branch v. Smith
The Supreme Court upheld a federal court's decision to block a Mississippi state court's congressional redistricting plan, because that plan had never received the federal civil-rights approval known as preclearance, and to instead draw its own map with four single-member districts.
The ruling clarifies that when a state fails to redraw congressional lines after losing a seat, federal courts must generally draw new single-member districts rather than force the state to hold statewide at-large elections, resolving a long-simmering conflict between two federal election statutes.
How it got here: A state chancery court adopted a redistricting plan while a federal district court, unhappy with delays in federal preclearance, drew its own plan and enjoined the state plan; both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
After the 2000 census, Mississippi lost one of its five U.S. House seats, but the state legislature could not agree on new district lines. Voters sued in state court asking a Mississippi Chancery Court to draw a map, while other voters sued in federal court, arguing the old five-district map was unconstitutional and asking for either at-large elections or a court-drawn map.
The question before the Court
After Mississippi lost a congressional seat and its legislature failed to redraw district lines, could a federal court draw its own single-member districts instead of ordering statewide at-large elections?
Why it matters
The decision guarantees Mississippi voters kept electing representatives from geographic districts rather than voting for the entire delegation on one statewide ballot, which tends to reduce the voting power of political and racial minorities. It also gives federal courts nationwide a clear rule for what to do when a state legislature deadlocks on redistricting after a congressional seat is lost or gained.
What changes now
The ruling finalized the constitutional and statutory validity of the district court's four-district map for the 2002 Mississippi congressional elections and going forward, since the decision resolves the merits of the dispute. No further redistricting litigation was required unless Mississippi later adopted and precleared its own map. The decision also stands as a governing framework for other states facing similar redistricting deadlocks after a state loses or gains congressional seats.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the state chancery court's plan was unconstitutional, vacating the district court's alternative holding on that question as unnecessary once it found the plan lacked preclearance. It also left open how far the at-large statute might still apply in a state not covered by the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy joined the Court's opinion in full, including the plurality parts, but wrote separately to explain that vacating the district court's alternative constitutional ruling was required by precedent. He argued that once a court finds a voting change lacks preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, it should not reach the constitutional question, because doing so risks interfering with the Justice Department's preclearance process.
Concurrence in part — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens agreed with the outcome and with Parts I, II, and III-A, but concluded that Congress's 1967 single-member-district law fully and impliedly repealed the older at-large statute rather than merely limiting it. Tracing the law's contentious legislative history, he argued Congress clearly meant to abolish at-large elections entirely except for a temporary exception for Hawaii and New Mexico, and that the plurality's more complicated reconciliation of the two statutes was unnecessary judicial improvisation.
Dissent in part — Justice O'Connor
“Section 2a(c) contains no imminence requirement.”O'Connor's objection that the majority invented a timing rule not found in the statute's text.
Justice O'Connor agreed that the state court's plan lacked preclearance and that the constitutional question was premature, but disagreed that the single-member-district statute controlled here. She argued the at-large election law's plain text required at-large elections unless and until the state had actually redistricted under state law, and that since Mississippi's plan lacked preclearance, it never took effect, so the district court should have ordered statewide at-large voting for all four seats instead of drawing its own map.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first addressed the Voting Rights Act's preclearance rule, which requires covered states like Mississippi to get federal approval — called preclearance — before any change to voting procedures can take effect. Because the Justice Department had asked for more information about the state court's plan and never received a satisfactory response before the state stopped pursuing approval, the 60-day clock for automatic approval never ran out, so the state court's plan never became legally enforceable.
- The Court then turned to which of two conflicting federal statutes governed the remedy: one law (2 U.S.C. § 2c) requires states with more than one House seat to use single-member districts, while another (2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)) says that until a state is redistricted, seats should be filled through statewide at-large elections.
- Looking at the history behind the 1967 law requiring single-member districts, the Court found it was adopted specifically to stop federal courts from ordering at-large elections when states failed to redistrict, and that every court to consider the question since then had read the law as binding on courts, not just legislatures.
- The Court concluded that the two statutes could coexist: the single-member-district law governs first, and the at-large fallback law applies only as a last resort, once an election is so close that no court or legislature can still draw single-member lines in time.
- Applying that framework, the Court held that because the federal district court still had time to draw single-member districts before the 2002 election, it was legally required to do so rather than order statewide at-large voting.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Growe v. Emison (507 U.S. 25)
The Court said this case differs because the state court plan here, unlike in Growe, was subject to Voting Rights Act preclearance.
Reaffirms Connor v. Waller (421 U.S. 656)
The Court relied on this case's rule that courts should not decide constitutional challenges to voting changes lacking preclearance.