Appendix — Connor v. Finch

Supreme Court brief1977

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U. 3,

~ FILED z

“ APPENDIX Py Ses

VOLUME I MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK

—— —-—

In the Supreme Court of the Gnited States

Octoser Term, 1976

Nos. 76-777, 76-933, 76-934, 76-935

Preaoy J. Connor, et au., Appellants

Ouirr Firxcn, Governor or tHe Strate or

MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

Curry Fixcn, Governor or tHe State or

; Mississippi, ET AL., Appellants

Proc: J. Connon, et aL, aND UNITED Srates or AMERICA

Unrrep Strares or Amenica, Appellant

Vv.

Curr Finca, Governor or THe State or

MISSISSIPPI, ET AL,

Peocy J. Connor, et au., Appellants

Curr Fixcu, Governor or THe Stare or

MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

APPFAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

—_-_——

DOCKETED DECEMBER 8, 1976, AND JANUARY 5, 1977

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED DECEMBER 8, 1976

AND JANUARY 17, 1977.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

: Page

TT he eee ee Pecasccpcceccccese I-1

Complaint (October 19, 1965)............ ae I-37

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 19 (May 17, 1971) (excerpt)...... 1-47

—T of Proceedings (February 7, 1975) (ex-

thin Mine 6 tas cadered 900 cess cee ses I-51

Juisaens (April 11, 1975)......... weutiesahh ties 1-52

Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equi-

table Relief (April 15, 1975) (exhibits omitted). .

Transcript of Proceedings (May 7, 1975) (excerpts). . "170

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits (May 7, 1975).................. I-71

P-6 Deposition of Harold E. Sweeney, Jr. (ex-

lll ie IIS ae FR 1-71

P-7 Deposition of Dr. James W. Loewen (exhibits

EE Telia cones nen gaccas ¢hese*s 1-117

P-8 Deposition of Dr. Gordon G. Henderson (ex-

i re hoo co hee st sasicngces 1-155

P-9 Interrogatories of Honorable J. Stanley Pot- —

tinger (exhibits omitted)................. 1-200

P-10 Deposition of Rims Barber (exhibits.

DTT Sietia a dale etanadacenbeseceee 1-221

P-17 Transcript of February 7, 1975 Testimony

of Dr. David Valinsky (exhibits omitted)... I-281

P-19 Valinsky Plan for Mississippi House of

POD cc ccssccaccedeecdsecsecese 1-325

P-20 Valinsky Plan for Mississippi State Senate. I-346

P-25 Deposition of Henry J. Kirksey (exhibits

DT iced coc ceeees a reenessccetesa 1-360

P-32 Kirksey Plan for Mississippi Senate (map

i ct ites ate ees ns o0%¢ceeees«* 1-410

P-33 Kirksey Plan for Mississippi House of Rep-

resentatives (map omitted)............... 1-419

Transcript of Proceedings (May 7, 1975).......... II-1

Witnesses :

Dr. Gordon G. Henderson (exhibits omitted)... I-1

Mr. Rims Barber (exhibits omitted)........... II-81

Henry J. Kirksey (exhibits omitted)........... TT-114

Order Allowing United States to Intervene as Party-

Plaintiff (Jume 11, 1975)... .......... ee ceeeeees 11-128

Complaint in Intervention of United States (June 11,

DT SERRE GeEEEReebeseeberbeescdccccsoccoce IT-129

Analysis of House Bill 1290 and Senate Bill 2976 by

United States (June 20, 1975).................. TT-135

Transcript of Proceedings (June 20, 1975) (excerpt) LI-177

Order Pursuant to Remand by the ‘Supreme Court of

the United States (Jume 25, 1975)............... II-178

Order Establishing Certain Temporary Districts for

the Election of Senators and Representatives in the

Mississippi Legislature for the Year 1975 Only

Fe Rr err err TT-183

Order Establishing Certain Temporary Districts for

the Election of Senators and Representatives in the

Mississippi Legislature for the Year 1975 Only

oS FR et ree IT-207

Plaintiffs’ -Motion to Alter or Amend J judgment

(July 21, 1975) (exhibits omitted)......./...... II-239

Motion of United States for Amendment of Judgment

(Delp Bh, BOUND dc chcciwovens dyesssocvesess vee. 11-252

Order on Motions Filed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-

Intervenor to Alter or Amend (August 1, 1975).. I1-254

Order Regarding Use of U. S. Census Bureau Popula-

tion Statistics (August 1, 1975)..............+5. 11-256

Alternative Plans Submitted by the United States Pur-

suant to Order of July 11, 1975 (October 31, 1975)

(map exhibits omitted)................0ee005: ITI-1

Request for Hearing Date by United States (Janu-

2 & Sa ere: Pr Aree rr Aer ITI-78

Order Deferring Further Hearing and Decision (Janu-

en Gh SIRs kwincn cc cepeeeods cocccacesannsses _

Preliminary Observations of Judge Coleman (June 1

OUND ous cogedsocennnéeedeibbcesdnscéecanneion rst

Transcript of Proceedings (June 15, 1976) (cxcerpt) III-89

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Prompt and Immediate Deci-

sion on a Final Court-Ordered Legislative Reappor-

tionment Plan and Special Elections (August 2,

BOOED ccccéncegécncccecedusdnsecésconemesosen ITI-91

Order Regarding Reapportionment of Mississippi

State Senate (August 24, 1976)............... [11-94

Order Regarding Reapportionment of Mississippi

State House of Representatives (September 8,

BOGE 6accdicccccs cobévhensaeadeesaseunaenauee IT-117

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Special Election Relief (Septem-

Bae GO, Wives ccccccceveteccécndensasisenenes III-139

ill

Proposal by United States for Special Elections (Sep-

EP en re Se ITT-142

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Special Elections (House Plan)

EEE TTI-146

Plaintiffe’ Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment and

Plaintiffs’ Objections to 1976 Court-Ordered Legis-

lative Reapportionment Plan (September 20, 1976)

SO I ig nis on nev ent cnckridinnches ITT-160

Proposal by United States for Special Elections (Sep-

Sy Se etn ents conceesenchedess Benn TTI-169

Letter dated September 28, 1976 from William D. Neal

to Honorable J. P. Coleman, Judge............. ITT-174

Memorandum from Special Master re House of

sentatives (October 7, 1976).........-.......%. _ITI-177

Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (October 8, iy ET eM el ITI-182

Letter dated October 19, 1976 from Frank R. Parker to

Honorable J. P. Coleman, et al................. III-197

Objections of the United States to Plans for the Re-

districting of the Mississippi Senate and House of

Representatives Contained in the Court Orders of

August 24 and September 8, 1976 (October 22,

SD ko Chikidinding Oth otneedt on éneontintensanietins ITT-206

Order Amending the Reapportionment of the House of

Representatives (November 12, 1976).......... ITI-220

Final Judgment (November 18, 1976)............ ITT-232

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal (November 18, 1976).. ITI-249

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (No-

ee ee ITT-250

Order by the U. S. Supreme Court Noting Probable

Jurisdiction (December 8, 1976)............... ITI-259

Letter dated December 17, 1976, from Honorable James

P. Coleman to the Clerk, U. 8. District Court, attach-

ing Special Master’s Report dated December 8, 1 ITI-260

Order Amending Previous Judgment (December 21,

ST adhogsesb eueeeieaudiedatescendecethease ITI-279

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal (December 27, 1976).. 111-283

United States’ Notice of Appeal (December 28,

BED ccbuleud deWied ede edddcccccccecceseces ITI-284

Orders Noting Probable Jurisdiction............. IT1-285

Docket Entries .

Unrrep StarTes Disrasor Coyrt ror THE SouTHERN

10-19-65

10-27-65

11-6-65

12-3-65

12-17-65

12-29-65

District, or MississipPi

Complaint, original and eight copies, filed.

Summons, original and five copies, copies having

attached thereto copy of complaint, issued and

handed U.S. Marshal.

Copy of complaint mailed to Judge Harold Cox.

Designation of Hon. James P. Coleman, United

States Circuit Judge, Hon. Dan Monroe Russell,

Jr., United States District Judge for the South-

ern District of Mississippi and Hon. William

Harold Cox, United States.District Judge for the

Southern District of Mississippi signed by Judge

Elbert P. Tuttle, Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to

hear and determine the action, filed and entered

OB, 1965, Page 1040.

Motion of Defendants for additional time within

Motion for More Definite Statement, with certifi-

ORDER: for good cause shown on Motion, de-

fendants are granted 45 additional days within

which to make defense to this cause in any man-

ner permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure, filed and entered OB, 1965, Page 1052.

Motion of Plaintiff for a hearing on their appli-

cation for preliminary injunction as soon as pos-

sible and in any event prior to January 4, 1966,

the date the Mississippi legislature will convene

in regular session, with certificate of service,

filed.

Defendants’ Motion to Drop Party, with certifi- -

cate of service filed.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Alternative

Motion for More Definite Statement, with certifi-

cate of service, filed.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Alternative

’ Plea in Abatement, with certificate of service,

filed.

Notice of cal’ for setting three-judge cases on ~

(1)

4-18-66

5-17-66

6-22-66

7-1-66

7-7-66

7-12-66

7-13-66

7-12-66.

7-12-66

7-15-66

January 7, 1966 at 2:00 P.M., at Jackson, Miss.,

mailed to attorneys of record.

Motion of L. H. Rosenthal, attorney of record, to

‘withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, with certifi-

cate of service and notice, filed.

Order granting L. H. Rosenthal leave to with-

draw as counsel on the motion filed 4-18-66, filed

and entered O.B. 1966, Page 349. (Copies mailed

to attorneys, also copies mailed to 3 Judges).

Notice of trial at Jackson, Miss. at 9:00 A. M. on

July 15, 1966, together with calendar, mailed by

registered mail, return receipt requested.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with

Exhibits ‘‘ A’’ and ‘‘B’’, certificate of service and

notice of hearing on July 15, 1966, at 9:00 A.M.,

Jackson, Miss., or as soon thereafter as possible,

filed.

Notice of Appearance of R. Jess Brown as at-

torney of record for plaintiff, with certificate of

service, filed.

Defendants’ ANSWER, with Certificate of Serv-

ice, filed.

Plaintiffs’ Amendment to Complaint, with Cer-

tificate of Service, filed.

Defendants’ Motion to continue this case hereto-

fore set for trial on July 15, 1966, and reset for

trial at a later date with notice of hearing on

July 15, 1966, at 9:00 A.M., in the U.S. District

Courtroom at Jackson, Miss., with attachments

and Uertificate of Service, filed.

Defendants’ motion for the Court to determine

by Order, as provided by Rule 23, Fed. Rules Civ. \_ _-

Proc., as amended February 28, 1966, effective

July 1, 1966, whether the entire action is to be

maintained as a class action and if so, whether

notice should be given to members of the class,

with notice of hearing on July 15, i966, at 9:00

A.M., in the U.S. District Courtroom, Jackson,

Miss., with Certificate of Service, filed.

Defendants’ Answer to New Allegations with

certificate of service, filed. (Copies handed three

judges in courtroom).

Sworn affidavit of Thompson McClellan, filed.

(Copies handed three judges in courtroom).

gee Seen OR

7-15-66

722-66

7-22-66

8-15-66

3 f

EXHIBITS: Received and filed Plaintiff’s 1

thru 13. (Copies made for three judges) (THE

EXHIBITS ARE ON A SHELF IN THE

EXHIBIT ROOM).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW: ‘‘In the event the Legislature does

not enact an acceptable plan on or before Decem-

ber 1, 1966, this Court will proceed with its own

plan by which the new legislators and senators

are to be elected. That which has herein appeare |

shall constitute the findings of fact and conel):-

sions of law in this case, and an order according!

will be prepared and entered by the Court. Any

motion, plea, or pleading not herein disposed of

may be considered as left pending the final Judg- '

ment in the cause, and, as already stated, we do

not here deal with the matter of Congressional

Redistricting.’’, filed.

ORDER Directing Reapportionment of the Sen-

ate and the House of Representatives of the

Legislature of the State of Mississippi, filed and

entered OB 1966, Pages 473, 474 and 475.

Motion for certain documentary material offered

into evidence, requested by the Court at the con-

clusion of the hearing on the merits on July 15,

1966; be admitted into evidence as exhibits sub-

ject to such objections as may appear of record in.

said depositions, and subject to the ruling of the

Court, with certificate of service, filed in tripli-

cate.

Motion by defendants for admission into evi-

dence of certain documents with Notice of Motion

and certificate of service, filed.

Defendant’s Motion objecting to the admission

into evidence of certain documents offered by

motion of plaintiffs filed on July 25, 1966, with

notice of Motion and Certificate of service—filed.

Deposition of Charles M. Hills (Original and

three copies) taken July 22, 1966 at Jackson,

Miss.—filed.

Deposition of James S. Saggus (Original and

three copies) taken July 22, 1966 at Jackson,

Miss.—filed.

Deposition of J. Harold Flannery (Original and

8-15-66

9-30-66

10-28-66

10-31-66

10-28-66

12-2-66

three copies) taken July 22, 1966 at Jackson,

Miss. with exhibits—filed.

Court Reporter’s transcript of Stipulation (orig-

inal and three copies) taken July 22, 1966 at

Jackson, Miss., with one set of exhibits—filed.

Stipulation of Parties with Exhibits 1 and 2

(original and three copies )—filed.

PER CURIAM OPINION: ‘‘That which has

herein appeared shall constitute the findings of

fact and conclusions of law in this case, and an

order accordingly will be prepared and entered

by the Court.’’, with attachment, filed. (Anne

Crews advised that copies of Opinion mailed to

attorneys by Judge Coleman’s secretary).

FIRST FINAL JUDGMENT: Order approving

and adjudging House Bill No. 911, Mississippi

Laws 1966 to be valid and proper and dismissing

claim of the Plaintiffs attacking validity thereof

with prejudice at plaintiff’s cost; This court

reserves and retains full jurisdiction of the claim

involving reapportionment of the Legislature of

Mississippi pending special session of the Legis-

lature, filed and entered OB 1966, Pages 693 and

694. (Copies mailed attorneys) (Aune Crews

advised that she mailed copies to judges on

9-26-66).

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal to the United States

Supreme Court from Judgmnt entered 9-30-66,

with certificate of Service, filed.

Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed three judges.

Cash bond on appeal in the amount of $250.00,

filed.

ORDER FOR BRIEFING TOWARD DISPOSI-

TION OF CASE: ordered that plaintiffs file

their brief on their contentions as to the validity

of such newly enacted state legislation and to

deliver copies of such brief to the members of this

Court and to the opposition on or before noon on

12-17-66; defendants are ordered to file their

brief and to deliver copies of such brief to the

members of this Court and to the opposition on

or before noon 12-27-66; the plaintiffs may re-

spond to such brief in like manner on or before

ee eee

12-2-66

12-16-66

12-17-66

12-23-66

12-27-66

1-4-67

1-9-67

1-10-67

noon on 12-31-66; the Clerk of this Court shall

notify counsel for both sides today of this order

and send them a copy thereof, filed and entered

OB, 1966, Page 905.

At the direction of Miss Anne Crews, Mr. Alvin

Bronstein and Mr. Martin McLendon and were

read the Order filed 12-2-66; Judge Russell was

handed a copy and Judge Coleman was mailed a

copy. After Mr. Bronstein and Mr. McLendon

were called they both requested that they come

by and pick up the Order rather than have it

mailed—which they did.

Brief of Plaintiffs, filed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint, filed.

Order allowing amendment to complaint as set

out in plaintiff’s amendment to complaint, filed

and entered OB 1966, Page 941.

Plaintiffs’ Amendment to Complaint, with Cer-

tificate of Service, filed.

Certificate of Service by plaintiffs’ attorney,

showing service of a copy of the Brief of Plain-

tiffs on defendants’ attorney, filed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for extension of time to com-

plete the docketing of the appeal with the Su-

preme Court of the U. S. up to and including

January 23, 1967, and certificate of service, filed.

ORDER: that the time for the docketing of the

above-captioned case with the Supreme Court of

the United States, the filing of the jurisdictional

statement and all matters ancillary thereto be and

it hereby is extended up to and including January

23, 1967, filed and entered OB 1966, page 952.

Copy of Reply Brief of Plaintiffs, signed by R.

Jess Brown and Alvin J. Bronstein—filed, pursu-

ant to order of Court.

Defendants’ Answer to New Allegations, with

certificate of service, filed.

EXHIBITS: D-1 through D-3, filed.

ORDER: The defendants are afforded an oppor-

tunity and are invited within five days after this

date to articulate the reasons for the variations

and disparities appearing on the face of the legis-

lative enactment in suit. A copy of this order

1-13-67

1-16-67

1-18-67

1-19-67

3-2-67

shall be served by the United States Marshal on

the Attorney General of Mississippi as due notice

hereof today, filed and entered OB 1967, Pages 17

and 18.

Argument by Plaintiff’s Counsel with Court Re-

porter’s certificate, filed.

Response to show cause order, with certificate of

service filed.

Copies of Senate Bill 1501 through 1505, ad-

dressed to Gov. Paul B. Johnson on 11-10-66 to

Extraordinary Session of Mississippi Legisla-

ture; Amendments to Senate Bills 1501 through

1505; Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 101-107

with attachments; with certificate of Havis

Sartor, Secretary of the Senate, filed.

Copies of House Bill Nos. 3, 4, 5, 31, 33 and 34

with certificate of Roman Kelly, Clerk of the

Miss. House of Representatives, filed.

OPINION (Judges Coleman, Russell and Cox)

establishing Districts for the election of 52 Sena-

tors and 122 Representatives in the Mississippi

Legislature; parties to suit may, within 10 days

file one complete proposed plan for the reappor-

tionment of both Houses of the Legislature for

the entire State, such plan to be accompanied by

short memoranda or briefs, at opinion of parties,

after which the plan will be thoroughly con-

sidered by the Court; the Court will then enter its

interlocutory order implementing this opinion

and changes, if any; this opinion to constitute the

Court’s finding of fact and concludes as a matter

of law that reapportionment herein devised com-

plies with one man one vote rule; the Court

retains jurisdiction that it may act upon any plan

of Reapportionment hereafter enacted by Leg. of

State of Miss.; the order of the Court shall pro-

vide for a copy of this opinion and order imple-

menting same duly certified to be served upon the

Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of

State by the U. S. Marshal, and all Legislators

shall be elected and hold office as herein provided

until further order of this Court—filed. (Extra

copies in drawer in Xerox room).

3-10-67

3-13-67

3-27-67

3-29-67

3-25-67

3-10-67

3-23-71

3-24-71

Plaintiffs’ Proposed reapportionment plan and

supporting memorandum with certificate of serv-

ice, filed.

Court reporter’s transcript of proceedings taken

7-15-66 before Judges Coleman, Cox and Russell,

filed.

INTERLOCUTORY DECREE: Court finds

plan submitted by plaintiff suggesting changes

and realignment of Counties in Districts 8, 14, 39

and 40 to be ‘‘ without merit’’; sets forth number

of senators and legislators and directs Clerk to

mail copies of decree to the Governor, Attorney

General and Secretary of State of the state of

Mississippi, filed and entered OB 1967, Pages

250-254.

OPINION of Supreme Court of the United

States PER CURIAM, The Motion to affirm is

granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUS-

TICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable

jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down

for argument, filed.

Certified copy of JUDGMENT of the Supreme

Court of the United States granting the motion

to affirm and affirming the Judgment of the Dis-

trict Court, filed and entered OB 1967, Page 299.

Copy mailed three judges.

Final J. S. 6 card (at direction of Judge Cox)

Notice of Motion of Defendants for approval of

apportionment plan of Miss. Legislature at a

time and place convenient to the Court with at-

tached motion certificate of service, with Exhibits

1 through 5 attached, filed. (JS 5 Re-op. at direc-

tion of Judge Cox)

Copy of above Notice of Motion and Motion with

attached exhibits forwarded to Judges Coleman

and Russell, Judge Cox directed his placed in

file.

ORDER: Directing plaintiffs and defendants to

file parallel briefs within fifteen days, addressed

to the validity or invalidity of House Bill 515 of

the laws of Mississippi of 1971 approved by the

Governor on March 23, 1971, setting out certain

points for parties to brief on. ORDERED by

3-31-71

4-8-71

5-12-71

5-13-71

2-14-68

4-3-68

5-17-71

5-18-71

direction of the panel, signed by Judge Cox, filed

and entered O.B. 1971, Pages 326 & 327.

Notice of Appearance of Constance Iona Slaugh-

ter as one of the attorneys of record, for plaintiff

with cert. of service, filed.

Motion of R. Jess Brown, Attorney for leave to

associate George Peach Taylor as Co-Counsel for

plaintiffs, with cert. of service and Cert. of Good

Standing from Northern Dist. of Alabama, filed.

Plaintiff’s objections to House Bill 515, with cert.

of service, filed.

Notice of Appearance of John L. Maxey, II,

Geraldine H. Carnes, and Danny E. Cupit as

additional counsel for plaintiffs, with certificate

of service, filed.

Plaintiff’s Additional Objection to House Bill

515, with certificate of service, filed. (Copy

handed Judge Cox and Judge Russell)

Form letter addressed to Hon. Martin McLendon,

Asst. Attorney General, State of Mississippi,

notifying that within 45 days EXHIBITS would

be destroyed if not picked up.

EXHIBITS destroyed.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Affirmative Relief, with

cert. of service, filed.

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 thru 22, filed. (Exhibit 12

A, B & C are large maps placed in vault.) (Copy

delivered to Judge Coleman by Plaintiff. Copy

handed Judge Cox by Ann Crews. Copy handed

Mrs. Randolph for Judge Russell)

Objections of Attorney General of Mississippi to

Proposed Reapportionment Plans filed by the

plaintiff, with cert. of service, filed. (Copy

handed Judge Russell. Copy handed Mrs. Rich-

mond for Judge Cox. Copy handed law clerk for

Judge Coleman. )

OPINION and JUDGMENT: (Judges Coleman,

Cox and Russell) All elections to be held district —

wide; districts electing more than one member

all candidates shall qualify and be elected by

posts; there shall be 33 Senatorial Districts for

election of state legislators; (here opinion sets

out each district described as to county, number

of Senators, Total Population of District and

Percentage of Population above or below norm

per seat); the Court adheres to County lines

(rather than beat lines) as the best, fairest &

most effective method of delineating districts for

the election of legislators in the State of Mis-

sissippi; Hinds County is entitled to 12 represen-

tative; Harrison to 7 and Jackson to 5 (without

George) ; a County which elects 3 representatives

or less presents no problem because candidates

are required to run by posts, however when a

County, within its own borders, elects four or

more representatives it would be ideal if it could

be divided into districts for the election of one

member to the district. Under the reapportion-

ment plan herein adopted by this Court, the

counties of Hinds, Harrison & Jackson elect 4 or

more senators or representatives; the time left

available makes it impossible to obtain depend-

able data, population figures, boundary locations

so as fairly and correctly to divide these counties

into districts for election of single members of

the Senate or the House in the time for the elec-

tions of 1971 however the legislature to be chosen

in 1975 and 1979 will be based on the Census of

1970; This Court states that as of January 1,

1972 it expects to appoint a Special Master to

take testimony and make findings as to whether

the Counties of Hinds, Harrison and Jackson

may feasibly be divided into district of substan-

tially equal numbers in population for the

elections of 1975 and 1979 and to file his recom-

mendations with this Court for appropriate

adjudication. As to this, jurisdiction is retained.

The reapportionment plan herein set out as to all

other Counties is final and subject to no further

review by this Court. As provided by Rule 52

this opinion shall constitute the findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this case. This opinion

shall also constitute and is hereby expressly de-

clared to be the formal JUDGMENT of this

Court and shall be docketed as such; the respec-

tive parties shall bear their own costs; a copy of

5-21-71

5-22-71

this opinion, duly certified shall be served upon

each member of the Election Commission of the

State of Mississippi and upon the Clerk of the

Mississippi House of Representatives and the

Secretary of the Miss. State Senate and due re-

turn made of such service. The Clerk of the

House and the Secretary of the Senate are re-

spectfully requested to have this opinion printed

as soon as possible for the use of the membership

of the respective branches of the legislature. This

being the action of a Court of the United States

sitting in equity and not State Action and this

being for the purpose of complying with the one

man-one vote requirements of the United States

Constitution involving no racial discrimination

to the exercise of the franchise under the Fif-

teen Amendment, we are of the opinion that it

is not necessary that this reapportionment plan

be submitted to the Attorney General of the

United States or the Courts of the District of

Columbia under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as

extended, 42 USC 1971, 1973 et seq. This judg-

ment shall be in full force and effect from and

after this date. Filed and entered OB 1971 Pages

759-784.

Motion of Plaintiffs to alter or amend judgment

of 5-18-71 or in alternative Motion for immediate

appointment of Special Master with instructions,

and for other relief with certificate of service,

filed.

Order Amending and Supplementing Judgment

dated May 18, 1971, filed and entered OB 1971, P.

796-799. Certified copy served by U.S. Marshal

on 5-22-71 on Heber Ladner and George Peach

Taylor, and on 5-24-71 on John Bell Williams

and A. F. Summer.

Order overruling motion of Plaintiffs for ap-

pointment of special master to create single

member district in Hinds County, Filed and en-

tered OB 1971, P. 800-801. Certified copy served

by U.S. Marshal 5-22-71 on Heber Ladner and

George Peach Taylor and on 5-24-71 on John Bell

Williams and A. F. Summer.

5-24-71

5-25-71

5-28-71

6-3-71

6-4-71

6-5-71

6-7-71

NOTICE OF APPEAL of Plaintiffs and The

Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to U. 8S.

Supreme Court with certificate of service, filed.

Bond for costs on appeal in amount of $250.00

filed and paid into registry of Court.

Motion of Plaintiffs for stay of judgment and

injunction pending appeal with certificate of

service,

Certified copy of Notice of Appeal mailed John

F. Davis, Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court. ;

Order denying motion of Plaintiff to stay judg-

ment and on alternative motion for a restraining

order pending appeal, Filed and entered OB

1971, P. 806. (Copy mailed attorneys, handed

Judge Cox (by sue) and mailed Judges Russell

and Coleman)

Court reporter’s transcript of hearing on 5/14/71

in Jackson before Judges Coleman, Cox and

Russell, with certificate, filed. .

Request to Clerk of Plaintiffs to certify and

transmit partial record on appeal with certificate

of service, filed.

Certified copy of Per curiam ORDER OF SU-

PREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:

the judgment below is stayed until 6/14/71. The

District Court is instructed to devise and put

into effect a single-member district plan for

Hinds County by 6/14/71 and extend the

6/4/71 filing date for legislative candidates from

Hinds County to appropriate date so those can-

didates and the State of Miss. may act in light of

new districts into which Hinds County will be

divided. Chief Justice, Justice Black and Justice

Harlan dissent and reserve the right to file an

opinion to that effect, filed and entered OB 1971,

pages 868 thru 872.

EXHIBITS: P-1 through P-3, filed.

Dissenting Opinion of Supreme Court Mr. Jus-

tice Black, with whom The Chief Justice and

Mr. J wage wag join, bey ; an — —

for J ox, Madge for usse

said ie Gdusan: Filed and entered OB

1971, Pages 872-A thru 872-C,

6-7-71

6-8-71

6-14-71

6-15-71

Court Reporter’s Transcript of proceedings had

on 6-5-71 at Jackson, Mississippi before Judges

Coleman, Cox and Russell, filed.

ORDER appointing William D. Neal as Special

Master in this case to propose a valid plan, if

such be possible, for division of Hinds County

as directed by the Supreme Court, to be done

and filed not later than 6-14-71, and sooner if

possible; said Special Master shall file with this

Court a written report of his findings, conclu-

sions and recommendations ; Special] Master shall

be allowed expenses and just and reasonable

compensation for his services and other neces-

sary costs as allowed and approved by this

Court, to be taxed according to law. Filed and

entered OB 1971, P. 884-887. (Copy handed A.

F. Summer, Atty. General and 2 copies handed

Houston J. Patton for George Peach Taylor and

John Maxey)

Oath of Special Master executed, filed.

Report of Special Master William D. Neal with

Exhibits A and B attached, filed. (Copy handed

John Maxey, George P. Taylor and James A.

Haddad (Atty. Gen’s. Office) Copy mailed Judge

Coleman, handed Judges Cox and Russell)

Notice te Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defend-

ants to file any exceptions, if any, to above report

by noon June 15, 1971. Filed and entered OB

1971, P. 898. (Copies handed Maxey, Taylor and

James Haddad for Attorney General)

Motion of Defendants to modify Opinion, Find-

ings of Fact, Conelusions of Law and Judgment

of May 18, 1971, as Amended May 21, 1971 with

certificate of service, filed. (Copy handed Judge

Russell, Judge Cox and Mailed Judge Coleman)

Response of Defendants to Report of Special

Master, filed. (Copy handed Judges Russell &

Cox, mailed Judge Coleman)

Motion of Plaintiffs to refer certain matters to

Specia) Master with certificate of service, filed.

(Copy i «ded Judges Russell and Cox, mailed

Judge Coleman)

Objections of Plaintiffs to report of Special

6-15-71

Master with certificate of service, filed. (Copy

handed Judges Russell and Cox, mailed Judge

Co ) * .

Motion of Plaintiffs for hearing of objections to

Report of Special Master with certificate of serv-

ice. (Copy handed Judges Russell and Cox,

- mailed Judge Coleman)

6-15-71

6-16-71

1-26-72

Amendment of Plaintiffs to objections to report

of Special Master with certificate of service with

Appendix A, B and C attached, filed. (Copy

handed Judges Russell, and Cox, mailed Judge

Coleman)

OPINION of Court on Remand from Supreme

Court Staying Order dated 6-3-71 with Exhibits

A and B (Exhibit B having exhibits A and B

also) attached, filed.

ORDER: Motion of defendants to modify former

opinion and finding of facts and conclusions of

law denied; Motion of Plaintiffs to re-refer case

to Special Master denied; Candidates for office

of Senator and Representative in the Mississippi

Legislature for Hinds County for 1971 elections

shall run and be elected from county at large

and candidates shall have until noon, Saturday

June 19, 1971, to qualify for said election; This

Order is interlocutory in character and Special

Master (William D. Neal) will not be discharged

but remain available to the Court for further

services herein if necessary ; Twenty-Five copies

of this Order with supporting and underlying at-

tachments shall be transmitted by the Clerk of

this Court by air mail to the Clerk of Supreme

Court of U.S. as the report of this court on its

findings and clusions [sic] on the record made by

Plaintiffs in this case. Filed and entered OB 1971,

P. 1014-1017. (Copies handed Maxey for George

Taylor, mailed A. F. Summer)

Twenty-Five certified copies of Opinion with At-

tachments and (Twenty-five certified copies of

Order forwarded by air mail to E. Robert Seaver,

Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.

Per Curiam Order from the Supreme Court.

‘* . ., the judgment of the District Court is va-

2-28-72

4-12-72

4-24-72

10-4-72

10-17-72

1-3-73

1-4-73

cated, except insofar as it applied to the 1971

elections, and the case is remanded to the District

Court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.’’, filed.

ORDER: Certified copy of Order from Supreme

Court: The judgment of the District Court is...

‘*vacated with costs, except insofar as it applied

to the 1971 elections; and that this cause be, and

the same is hereby, remanded to the United

States District Court for the Southern District

of Mississippi for further proceedings consistent

with the opinion of this Court.’’, filed and entered

OB 1972, Page 277.

Bill of Costs in the sum of $100.00, with copy of

letter from Supreme Court Clerk dated 2-23-72

attached, filed.

Costs in the sum of $100.00 taxed.

Certified copy of ORDER: Clerk of Court issue

check in amount of $2,750.00 payable to Lawyers’

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, repre-

senting cash refund of cash bond on appeal in

each of eleven cases listed, filed and entered OB

1972, page 1196. (DMR)

Certified copy of ORDER: Clerk of Court issue

check in amount of $750.00 payable to Lawyers’

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, repre-

senting cash refund of cash bond on appeal in

each of above cases (3641, 3830 & 4808), filed and

entered OB 1972, Page 1196 (DMR)

Pitf’s. motion for appointment of special master

with instructions, and reference to establish

single member districts for Hinds, Harrison &

Jackson counties, with cert. of service and notice

of motion on 1/12/73 in Jackson before Judge

Cox in Jackson, filed.

ORDER FOR DEFERMENT: Pitfs. directed to

immediately contact proper officials of Missis-

sippi Legislature and make known their conten-

tions and make available all date to enable Legis-

lature to dispose of questions relating to Hinds,

Harrison and Jackson Counties within time indi-

cated. Action of the Court on appointment of a

Master will be disposed of by proper order at a

1-26-73

2-9-73

3-13-73

4-5-73

later time., Ordered for the Entire Court, filed

and entered OB 1973, pages 4&5. (WHC) (Cop-

ies mailed Mr. Summer, Mr. Taylor and Judges

Coleman & Russell. Anne Crews handed copy for

Judge Cox)

Motion of George Peach Taylor for leave to

Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs, with cert. of

service, filed.

Motion of pltfs. for leave to associate Frank R.

Parker as Co-Counsel with exhibits attached,

with cert. of service, filed.

Defendants Submission pursuant to Order for

Deferment and Motion for Approval of Appor-

tionment of the Mississippi Legislature with

Notice of Hearing at a time and place convenient

to the Court, certificate of service and attach-

ment, filed.

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW

CAUSE: Pitfs. are cited to show cause on

4/20/73 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom No. 2 in Jack-

son, Miss. why legislative enactments as passed

and adopted should not be approved under the

rule of Supreme Court as being in compliance

with the ‘‘one person, one vote’’ rule. An at-

tested copy of this order delivered by U. S. Mar-

shal at office of one of the attys. for pltf. shall

constitute service, filed and entered OB 1973,

pages 414 & 415. (WHC) (Certified copy handed

U. S. Marshal to be delivered to John L. Maxey

and Judge Russell) (Copies mailed Judge Cole-

man, and William Allain, Asst. Atty. Gen.) (Per

Anne Crews)

Marshal’s return on Order to Show Cause exe-

cuted as to Judge Russell and John Maxey on

3/13/73, filed.

Plaintiffs’ objections to House Bill 446 and

Senate Bill 1701, with cert. of service, filed.

(Copy handed J. Nall for Judge Cox, handed M.

Randolph for Judge Russell and mailed to Judge

Coleman)

Notice of plaintiffs to take deposition of Rep.

Stone D. Barefield on 4-10-73 in Hattiesburg,

4-5-73

45-73

4-9-73

4-10-73

4-12-73

4-13-73

— beg. at 10:00 a.m., with cert. of service,

Deft. William L. Waller’s Motion for Protective

Order against taking of deposition of Rep. Stone

Barefield and staying all further discovery and

Notice for hearing before Judge Cox on 4-5-73,

with cert. of service, filed.

ORDER: George Peach Taylor permitted to

withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs and John L.

Maxey, II and Frank R. Parker remain as and

be substituted as counsel in his place, filed and

entered OB 1973, Page 510 (copy mailed attor-

neys—copy hand2d atty. Frank Parker)

ORDER: deft. Gov. Waller’s Motion for Protec-

tive Order on Discovery denied except that pltfs.

in their discovery shall be limited to 5 deposi-

tions of members of the Miss. Legislature and

are prohibited from taking depositions of news-

paper reporters or of members of the staff of the

Miss. Legislature or staff persons employed for

purposes of working on the state reapportion-

ment plan but if pltfs. can show good cause for

necessity of additional depositions of legislators

they may apply to Court by motion for such

further discovery, filed and entered OB 1973,

Page 511 (copy handed atty. Parker, mailed

other attorneys)

Defendant’s submission concerning present is-

sues before the Three Judge Court, with cert. of

service and letter from Heber Ladner, Jr. stating

a copy to be mailed to individual judges, filed.

Pitf’s. notice of deposition upon oral examination

of Rep. Horace Lester and Sen. Con Maloney on

4/13/73 in Jackson, with cert. of service, filed.

Amended submission pursuant to order for de-

ferment and motion for approval of apportion-

ment of the Mississippi legislature with Exhibit

I & Il and cert. of service, and notice of motion

at time and place convenient to the Court, filed.

Letter from A. F. Summer stating copies of

above motion mailed individual judges, filed.

Attorney Frank Parker’s return on deposition

4-17-73

4-18-73

4-19-73

8-27-73

3-19-74

4-26-74

5-10-74 ©

subpoena executed as to Rep. Horace B. Lester

on 4-12-73, filed.

Pitf’s. motion for continuance, with cert. of

service, filed. (Copies placed in Judges’ files. )

Pitf’s. motion for substitution of successor pub-

lie officials as defendants, with cert. of service,

filed. (Copies placed in Judges’ files.)

Pitf’s. notice of above two motions on 4/20/73

at 9:00 AM in Jackson, filed.

Deposition of Horace B. Lester taken by pltf. on

4/13/73, filed.

Deposition of James C. Maloney taken by pltf. on

4/13/73, filed.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to House Bill 1389 and

Senate Bill 2452, and Prayer for Injunctive Re-

lief with Exhibits A, B and C attached, with cert.

of service, filed.

Deposition of Stone D. Barefield, Vols. I & II,

taken on 4-10-73 in Hattiesburg, Miss., with Ex-

hibits 1 through 7 attached in separate brown

manila envelope, filed.

Deposition of William Winter taken in Jackson,

Miss. on 4-17-73, with Exhibits 1 through 5 at-

tached, filed.

Deposition of Harold E. Sweeney, Jr. taken by

plitf. on 4/20/73, filed.

Deposition of Harold E. Sweeney, Jr., Volume

II taken by plitf. on 4/20/73, filed.

Exhibits 1 through 12 to deposition of Harold E.

Sweeney taken by pltf. on 4/20/73, filed. (EX-

HIBITS 1 & 2 in BROWN ENVELOPE IN

VAULT. EXHIBITS 3 through 12 ARE

LARGE MAPS AND PLACED IN VAULT)

Large roll of exhibits (maps & Charts) received

from Supreme Court and placed in vault.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplemental

complaint, with copy of Supplemental complaint

and attachments, Cert. of service and notice of

motion on 5/3/74 before Judge Cox in Jackson,

filed. (Copy for Judge Cox put in Glenda Bond’s

box to be handed to Judge Cox) (Other copies

placed in files per Bobbie Price)

ORDER denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

5-20-74

10-1-74

10-11-74

10-15-74

10-28-74

11-7-74

11-15-74

12-3-74

file supplemental complaint, filed and entered OB

1974, page 753. (Copies mailed all attys. of

record) (Copies placed in Judge’s files and not

mailed per B. Price)

Motion for Review and Reconsideration by

Three-Judge Panel of Plaintiffs’ motion for

leave to file supplemental complaint, with attach-

ment and cert. of service, and notice of motion

before Judges Coleman, Russell and Cox on

5/31/74 in Jackson at 9:00 AM, filed. (Copy

handed Glenda Bond for Judge Cox and mailed

Judges Coleman and Russell)

Notice of plaintiff of taking of deposition upon

written questions, with Questions to be Pro-

pounded, cert. of service and Exhibits A thru I,

filed.

Plaintiffs’ request for admission of facts and

genuineness of documents, with cert. of service

and Exhibits 1 thru 27, filed. (EXHIBITS 1

THRU 27 placed in separate folder in file and

marked)

Pitf’s notice of depositions upon oral examina-

tion of Dr. James W. Loewen on 10-17-74 and

Dr. Gordon G. Henderson on 10-18-74, with cert.

of service, filed.

Notice of plaintiffs to take depositions of Rep.

Robert Clark and Dr. Gordon G. Henderson on

11-1-74, with cert. of service, filed.

Defendants’ response to pltfs.’ request for ad-

mission of facts aud genuineness of documents,

with cert. of service, filed.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to plain-

tiffs’ request for admission of facts and genuine-

ness of documents, with Exhilit A & B, and

notice of motion on 12/2/74 in Gulfport before

Judge Russell at 9:00 AM, with cert. of service,

filed. (Copy handed Glenda for Judge Cox and

mailed Judges Coleman & Russell)

DEPUTY CLERK SHEET: Hearing in Gulf-

port on 12/2/74 for 15 min. on motion to compel

answers to plaintiffs’ request for admissions of

facts and genuineness of documents. ACTION

TAKEN : Deft. granted 10 days to submit brief—

el lp aa a

12-16-74

1-17-75

1-24-75

1-29-75

1-30-75

2-5-75

2-7-75

3-7-75

3-12-75

4-9-75

4-11-75

under advisement. (Judge hussell discovered,

after hearing above motion, that Judge Cox is

the Managing Judge—Judge Russell will contact

Judge Cox.)

Deposition of Interrogatories to Hon. J. Stanley

Pottinger, filed.

Letter written to U.S. Supreme Court requesting

they search their records to see if a portion of

this case file is still in their office. List of docu-

ments that are missing attached to letter. (Sue)

Plaintiffs’ Notice to take Depositions of Rims

Barber and Dr. David Valinsky on February 3rd

and 7th, with Certificate of Service, filed.

Deposition of Dr. James W. Loewen with Ex-

hibits, taken by pltfs., filed.

Pitf’s. motion for an order to defendants to show

cause why the current State Legislative Reap-

portionment should not be enjoined, with cert.

of service and notice of motion on 02/07/75 in

Jackson at 9:00 AM, filed. (Copies mailed

Judges Russell and Coleman and placed in

Glenda’s Box for Judge Cox.)

Amendment to the interrogatories of the Honor-

able J. Stanley Pottinger, filed.

Deposition of Dr. Gordon G. Henderson taken by

pltfs on 11/1/74, with Exhibits 1 thru 17 attached,

filed.

EXHIBITS: P-1 through P-20 and D-1 and D-2;

Filed.

Deposition of Rims Barber taken by pltfs. on

2/3/75 in Jackson, Miss.., filed.

Bill of William D. Neal in amount of $602.58, with

Exhibit A, paid by State Attorney General, filed.

Pitf’s. notice of deposition of Henry J. Kirksey

on 03/17/75, with cert. of service, filed.

Deposition of Henry J. Kirksey taken by pltf. on

03/17/75 with Exhibits, Filed. (EXHIBITS

WRAPPED, MARKED AND PLACED IN

VAULT—LARGE SQUARE PACKAGE)

JUDGMENT: As managing judge and by direc-

tion of the entire Court, itis ORDERED: Entire

proceedings before this Court involving the 1967

and 1971 reapportionment of the Legislature are

4-15-75

4-17-75

4-21-75

4-23-75

5-7-75

hereby dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiffs

are directed to file in this cause, as Civil Action

No. 3830(A), an amended complaint to attack

said 1975 enactments of the Legislature of Miss.

within 5 days after receipt of a copy of this

order; Defts. shall file their answers within 5

days after receipt of copy of such amended com-

plaint ; This Court upon receipt of such pleadings

will immediately proceed to convene and conduct

hearing on questions presented and make prompt

and proper disposition thereof. A Copy of the

pleadings of the parties shall be mailed directly

to the three members of this Court at their proper

addresses by the parties, filed and entered OB

1975, pages 661-662. (Copies mailed Judges Cole-

man & Russel by G. Bond.) (Copies mailed Mr.

Brown, Parker, Slaughter, Maxey, Carnes and

A. F. Sammer.)

AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and

other Equitable Relief, with Exhibits 1 thru 4

and cert. of service, filed. (No Process-Attys.

directed to mail copies to Judges per Order of

04/11/75.)

Pitf’s. motion to alter or amend judgment, with

cert. of service and notice of motion on 04/25/75

in Jackson at 9:00 AM, filed. (Copies mailed

Judges Coleman and Russell and placed in

Glenda’s box for Judge Cox.)

ANSWER to amended complaint for injunctive

relief and other equitable relief, with cert. of

service, filed. (Copies mailed Judges Coleman &

Russell and placed in Glenda’s box for Judge

Cox.)

Deft’s. submission pursuant to Order and motion

for approval of the 1975 Apportionment Plan for

the Mississippi Legislature with cert. of service

and Exhibits I thru IV and indefinite notice of

motion, filed.

EXHIBITS: P-1 through P-35; and D-1, filed.

Pitf’s. motion for prompt and immediate deci-

sion and for other related relief, filed. (Copy

mailed Judge Coleman and handed Gwen and

Glenda for Judges Russell and Cox.)

5-14-75

5-20-75

5-22-75

5-23-75

6-6-75

Pitf’s. motion to supplement the record, with

cert. of service and Affidavit of Henry Klibanoff

and attachment, filed. (Frank Parker’s letter of

transmittal stated he had mailed copies to mem-

bers of three judge court at direction of Court)

Court Reporter’s transcript of proceedings held

in Jackson on 05/07/75 before Judges Coleman,

Cox and Russell, filed.

OPINION: Except as to Harrison County, the

complaint will be dismissed with prejudice ; as to

that County, jurisdiction will be retained to effec-

tuate the purposes with reference thereunto

stated; counsel for parties are directed to forth-

with prepare and submit a decree accordingly,

which any Judge of this Court is hereby autho-

rized to enter for the Court; the respective par-

ties will bear their own costs, filed. (Judges

Coleman, Russell & Cox) (copy handed to all

attorneys of record)

JUDGMENT: Amended Complaint dismissed

with prejudice except as to Harrison County, as

to which the Court retains jurisdiction for the

limited purposes set out in the Court’s opinion of

May 19, 1975; that the parties bear their respec-

tive costs, filed and entered OB 1975, pages 845-

846 (WHC) (copy mailed attys. Frank Parker

and John L. Maxey, II; copy handed Ed Noble,

Attorney General’s office)

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal to the Supreme

Court of the United States from judgment en-

tered 5-22-75, with cert. of service, filed.

Pitf’s. motion for stay of judgment and stay of

the 1975 Miss. Legislative Elections pending ap-

peal, with cert. of service, filed.

ORDER: Motion for an order enjoining the 1975

Miss. legislative elections pending appeal to Su-

preme Court is denied, filed and entered OB 1975,

page 851. (Copies mailed Judge Coleman and

Judge Russell, and placed in Glenda’s box for

Judge Cox. Copies mailed attys. of record.)

Plaintiff’s Motion Temporary Restraining Or-

der. (Copy handed G. Bond, for Judge Cox,

6-6-75

6-9-75

6-10-75

6-11-75

Copy handed G. Bryant for Judge Russell, and

Copy mailed Judge Coleman.

ORDER: Motion for temporary Restraining Or-

der, is hereby denied, filed and entered OB 1975,

page 969. (Copies mailed Judge Coleman and

Judge Russell, and placed in Glenda’s box for

Judge Cox. Copies mailed Attys. for record).

ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES, Whereof, it is Ordered that the Judg-

ment of United States District Court in this cause

is hereby, reversed with costs, and same is re-

manded to the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Mississippi for further

proceedings in conformity with the opinion of

this Court. It is further ordered that the said

appellants, Peggy J. Connor, et al, recover from

William L. Waller, Governor of Mississippi, One

Hundred Dollars ($100) for their costs herein

expended, filed and entered OB 1975 page 972.

(Copies mailed to Jess Brown, Frank R. Parker,

John L. Maxey, IT and A. F. Summer).

Motion for Injunctive Relief and to enforce the

mandate of the United States Supreme Court,

with certificate of service, filed.

ORDER: Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order to stay and suspend the 6/6/75, qualifying

deadline for party candidates for membership in

the Miss. House of Representatives and the Miss.

Senate is denied, filed and entered OB 1975, page

980. (Copies mailed attys. of record and placed

in Glenda’s and Gwen’s boxes. Copy mailed

Judge Coleman).

Motion of USA to intervene as plaintiff, with

cert. of service, filed. (Copy mailed Judge Cole-

man & placed in Courtroom Deputy’s boxes for

Judge Cox & Russell.)

ORDER: USA is allowed to intervene as party

plaintiff, filed and entered OB 1975, page 998.

(Copies mailed attys. of record and Judge Cole-

man, and placed in Glenda’s & Gwen’s box for

Judges Cox & Russell.)

Complaint in intervention with certificate of the

Attorney General of the U.S., filed. (Stated no

6-12-75

6-19-75

6-20-75

6-24-75

6-23-75

service was required) (Copy mailed Judge Cole-

man and placed in Courtroom Deputy’s box for

Judges Cox & Russell.)

Motion of USA for preliminary injunction, with

cert. of service, filed. (Copy handed Glenda for

Judge Cox, handed Gwen for Judge Russell &

mailed Judge Coleman. )

Deft’s. ANSWER to complaint in intervention,

with cert. of service, filed.

Deft’s. petition for a Writ of Mandamus, with

cert. of service, filed. .

Defts’. objections to pltfs’ motion for injunctive

relief and to enforce the mandate of the Supreme

Court of the U. S. and to the motion of the USA

for preliminary injunction, with cert. of service,

filed.

Court reporter’s transcript of proceedings held

in Jackson on 06/12/75 before Judges Coleman,

Cox and Russell, filed.

EXHIBITS: J-1 and Court-1, filed.

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT: It is the

judgment of the Court that all pleadings involv-

ing the 1967 and 1971 Legislature should be and

remain as an ac ve part of the entire matter be-

fore the Court and to that end said Judgment of

the Court dated April 10, 1975 and filed 04/11/75

is rescinded and vacated, filed and entered OB

1975, page 1047. (Copies mailed attys. and

Judges Coleman & Russell and handed Judge

Cox.)

Friend of the Courts Petition of Thomas G.

Russell and motion for Single Member Districts,

with cert. of service, filed. (Copy handed Judge

Cox and mailed Judges Coleman and Russell.)

Court Reporter’s Transcript of proceedings held

in Jackson on 06/20/75 before Judges Coleman,

Cox and Russell, filed.

ORDER: Dept. of Justice to file memoranda

with the Court setting forth, district by district,

facts of record demonstrating unconstitutional

dilution of black voting strength as asserted by

Dept. of Justice, plaintiffs may file similar

memoranda as to districts to which they have

objected, if they so desire. Further this Court,

6-25-75

6-27-75

7-2-75

where necessary, proposes to alter any district to

remedy any existing unconstitutional dilution of

black voting strength. Memoranda need not be

addressed to Hinds, Harrison and Jackson Coun-

ties. Parties advised that the Court proposes to

formulate a temporary plan for election of Sena-

tors and Representatives for 1975 for election of

Senatars and Representatives for 1975 election

ONLY, first primary schedules for 08/05/75. A

permanent plan for reapportionment cannot be

now formulated due to lack of time. When per-

manent plan for election of legislators in quad-

rennial elections of 1979 has been accomplished,

special elections may be ordered in those legisla-

tive districts where required by law, equity, or

the Constitution of the U.S. Legislative districts

altered by temporary plan for 1975, candidates

will be allowed adequate time for qualification in

the altered districts; however, those already

qualified will remain. Scheduled elections for

members of the legislature in 1975 will not be

postponed. (This order sets out the redistricting

of Jackson, Harrison and Hinds Counties.) Or-

dered by unaninous [sic] direction of the Court,

filed and entered OB 1975, pages 1068-1073.

(Copies handed attys. of record and handed

Judges Cox & Coleman and mailed Judge Russell

by Anne Crews. Copy taken to Washington by

Charlie Sutherland for Mr. Gerald Jones.)

Copy of letter from Judge Cox to Mr. Arny

Rhoden, U. S. Marshal dated 06/25/75, directing

that a copy of above order be delivered by special

messenger to Mr. Gerald Jones of U. S. Dept. of

Justice, filed.

Pitfs’ Supplemental Submission on Hinds

County Single Member Plans with Exhibits A

thru E attached, with cert. of service, filed.

(Frank Parker stated to G. Burdette he mailed

copy to each of the three Judges.)

Marshal’s return on letter from Judge Cox to

Mr. Rhoden, executed, filed.

Motion of City of Jackson, Miss., A Municipal

Corporation, to intervene as party plaintiff, filed.

7-2-75

7-3-75

7-7-75

7-2-75

7-7-75

7-8-75

(Copy handed Judge Cox by Mr. Smith and

mailed Judges Coleman and Russell.)

Pleading of the City of Jackson, Mississippi as

Intervener, with cert. of service, filed. (Mr. Smith

stated Judge Coleman told him to file the above

and a hearing would be had on Mon. July 7, 1975.)

(Copy handed Judge Cox by Mr. Smith and

mailed Judges Coleman & Russell.)

ORDER allowing the City of Jackson, Miss. to

file an amicus curiae brief within 3 days from or

after 07/03/75, filed and entered OB 1975, page

1106. (Copy handed Mr. Smith of City and

mailed other attys. of record.) (Copy handed

Judge Cox and mailed Judges Coleman &

Russell.)

Pitf’s. objections to Court-ordered districts es-

tablished by Order of 06/25/75, with cert. of

service, filed.

Defendants’ objections to the June 25, 1975,

Court-Ordered Legislative Districts, with cert. of

service and Appendix A & B, filed. (Copies

handed Judges Cox, Russell & Coleman.)

Letter from Conner Cain of Stone County, Miss.

dated 06/30/75 to Mr. Thomas re grievances

about Order of June 25, 1975, filed.

Letter from Mack McInnis of Greene County,

Miss., dated June 30, 1975 to Clerk of Court re

new Representative Post, filed.

EXHIBIT: D-1, filed.

ORDER establishing certain temporary districts

for the election of Senators and Representatives

in the Miss. i for the year 1975 Only.

Clerk of Court shall forthwith furnish a true copy

to the Secty. of State of the State of Miss. and to

each County Registrar in the affected county for

the information of those charged with the duty

of preparing and distributing the 1975 primary

election ballots, filed and entered OB 1975, pages

1137-1178. (Copies handed attys. of record. Cop-

ies mailed Judges Coleman and Russell and

handed Judge Cox by A. Crews.)

Plaintiff’s. Modified Mitchell Plan No. 2, with

7-9-75

7-10-75

7-11-75

7-14-75

7-21-75

7-23-75

7-24-75

8-1-75

cert. of service and attachments, filed. (Copies

mailed to Judges by Mr. Parker)

Certificate of mailing certified copies of Order

filed on 07/08/75 to Heber Ladner, Secretary of

State and to Circuit Clerks of named counties,

with attached list, filed.

U. S. Dept. of Justice House Plan for Hinds

County, filed. (Copies delivered by Highway

Patrol to all 3 Judges on 09/09/75)

Special Master’s House Plan for Hinds County

by New Voting Precints July 9, 1975, filed. (Cop-

ies delivered by Highway Patrol to all Judges

on 09/09/75)

ORDER establishing certain temporary Dis-

tricts for the election of Senators and Represen-

tatives in the Miss. Legislature for the Year 1975

only; Parties shall file with the Clerk of Court

plans for permanent reapportionment of the

Legislature. Hoyt T. Holland, Jr. is designated

to serve as Special master in this case to serve

under our orders and directions, filed and entered

OB 1975, pages 1193-1239. (Copies distributed to

Judges and all attys. of record.)

PER TELEPHONE INSTRUCTIONS OF

JUDGE COLEMAN: Precinct 8 interlined on

page 40 of Order filed on 07/11/75.

ORDER: To correct an error in transcription, it

is ordered that Order dated 07/11/75, with refer-

ence to District 43 for the election of Representa-

tives is corrected as contained in this order, filed

and entered OB 1975, pages 1270-1271. (Judge

Coleman mailed copies to Judges Cox & Russell.

Copies mailed all attys. of record.)

Piti’s. motion to alter or amend judgment with

cert. of service and attachments, filed.

Deft’s. response to motion to alter or amend

judgment, with cert. of service, filed.

Motion of the United States for amendment of

judgment, with cert. of service, filed. (Copies

mailed all Judges by U.S. Atty’s. office.)

ORDER: the Court declines to set a deadline of

2-1-76 for completion of a permanent plan for re-

apportionment of Miss. Legislature but reiterates

8-1-75

10-8-75

10-9-75

10-14-75

its firm determination to have such plan approved

before 2-1-76; as to all instances in which a spe-

cial election may be required, the Court expects

to direct that same shall be held in conjunction

with the 1976 Presidential election so as to save

the expense of special elections as far as possible ;

on pltfs’ motion to delete that portion of the

Court’s order appointing Hoyt T. Holland, Jr. as

special master, the Court expects to formulate its

own permanent plan and the duties of Mr. Hol-

land will be only to assist in that regard; the

matter of costs and attys. fees will be decided in

the final judgment establishing the perm. plan—

filed and entered OB 1975, pages 1312-1314 (copy

handed attorneys of record except copy mailed

John Maxey at his request) (copy mailed Judges

Coleman and Russell, handed Judge Cox)

ORDER: the population figures released by US.

Bureau of Census giving its population estimates

as of 1973 shall be used as the basis of and for the

establishment of a permanent plan of reappor-

tionment of the Miss. Legislature—the parties in

compiling the various plans to be submitted to

the Court will be governed accordingly, filed and

entered OB 1975, pages 1315-1317 (copy handed

attorneys of record except copy mailed John

Maxey at his request) (copy mailed Judges Cole-

man and Russell, handed Judge Cox)

Motion of USA for extension of time for filing

plans for permanent apportionment, with cert. of

service, filed. (Copies handed Glenda for distri-

bution to three Judges )

ORDER: U.S.A. granted up to and including

10-22-75 to file permanent plans for reapportion-

ment of legi filed and entered OB 1975,

Page 1651. (Copy mailed attys. Parker, Maxey

and Atty. Genl., copy handed U.S. Atty.) (Copy

mailed three judges)

Defendants Submission Pursuant to Order, with

cert. of service, filed. (Copy mailed three judges)

ORDER: motion of U.S.A. for extension of time

until 10-22-75, filed 10-8-75, granted, filed and en-

tered OB 1975, page 1669 (J. P. COLEMAN)

10-15-75

10-20-75

10-24-75

10-31-75

1-26-76

1-29-76

2-9-76

(Copy mailed attorneys) (copy mailed Judges

Coleman and Russell, handed Judge Cox)

Pitf’s. submission of permanent Legislative Re-

apportionment Plans, with cert. of service and

Exhibits, filed. (Copies mailed all three Judges

by Frank Parker)

Report to the Court of Department of Justice on

special census for Oktibbeha, Lowndes and Noxu-

bee Counties, with cert. of service, filed. (Copies

mailed to Judges Coleman and Russell and

handed Glenda for Judge Cox.)

ORDER: USA intervenor, and the Attorney

General of the U. S. as soon as practical after

entry of this order shall file with this Court the

most current evidentiary data as set out in Order

and USA, intervenor shall file a cert. with the

Court listing by Counties, alphabetically, the

offices to which Negro candidates aspired in said

elections, the name of such candidates, and

whether or not they were elected, filed and en-

tered OB 1975, pages 1812-1814. (Copies mailed

attys. Parker, Slaughter, Smith, Maxey, Sum-

mer, Allain, Hauberg and Judges Coleman &

Russell and handed Glenda for Judge Cox.)

Alternative Plans submitted by the United States

Pursuant to Order of 07/11/75, with Exhibits,

attachments and cert. of service, filed.

Submission of the United States pursuant to

October 24, 1975 Court Order, with attachments

and cert. of service, with request for hearing date

on 02/10/76, filed. (Per tel., Mr. Jones of Dept.

of Justice stated he had mailed each of the three

Judges a copy of this on 01/24/76)

ORDER: Further hearing and decision of this

case will be deferred until the Supreme Court

shall have decided cited cases, at which time this

Court will bring this case to trial forthwith, filed

and entered OB 1976, pages 238-240. (Copies

mailed Mr. Parker, Smith, Maxey, Summer &

Hauberg) (Copies mailed Judges Russell and

Coleman. Cpy. handed Glenda for Judge Cox.)

Pitf’s. supplemental submission of permanent

Legislative Reapportionment Plans, with cert. of

5-21-76

5-24-76

5-26-76

5-27-76

6-1-76

6-14-76

6-15-76

service and attachments, filed. (Copies handed

Glenda & Gwen for Judges Cox & Russell and

mailed Judge Coleman. ) '

Copy of letter from SUPREME COURT with

copy of OPINION OF SUPREME COURT, filed.

Certified copy of ORDER OF SUPREME

COURT OF U.S.: Motion to file petition for

Writ of Mandamus is granted and petition is con-

tinued to 06/17/76, filed and entered OB 1976,

page 980. (Copies mailed Judges Coleman and

Russell and placed in Glenda’s box for Judge

Cox.)

Request of USA for hearing date, with cert. of

service, filed. (Copy placed in Gwen’s box for

Judge Cox and mailed other Judges.)

ORDER: Three Judge Court will convene on

06/02/76 in Jackson for further proceedings.

Clerk of Court will forward 25 duly authenticated

copies of this Order to the Clerk of the Supreme

Court of the United States, and will furnish

copies to all counsel of record, filed and entered

OB 1976, pages 987-988. (25 certified copies

mailed Clerk of Supreme Court; Copies mailed

attys. of record; Cpy. in Glenda’s box for Judge

Cox and mailed Judges Russell & Coleman.)

Request of U.S.A., Intervenor, for continuance of

hearing scheduled for 6-2-76 until after 6-10-76,

with cert. of service, filed.

ORDER: hearing set for 6-2-76 rescheduled for

6-15-76 at 9 a.m., Fourth Floor, U.S. Courthouse,

Jackson, Ms., filed and entered OB 1976, pages

1017-1018 (JPC) (copy mailed attorneys; copy

handed G. Bond for Judge Cox, mailed Judges

Russell & Coleman)

Amendments to pltfs’ supplemental submission

of permanent plans requested by Court, with at-

tachment and cert. of service, filed. (Copy placed

in Glenda’s box for Judge Cox and mailed Judges

Coleman and Russell.) .

Preliminary observations.of Judge Coleman, be-

fore Judges Russell and Cox on hearing in

Jackson on 06/15/76, signed by all three judges,

filed.

6-15-76

6-16-76

7-19-76

8-2-76

8-10-76

8-11-76

8-24-76

Pitf’s. motion for an award of attorney’s fees

with affidavit of Frank R. Parker and cert. of

service, filed in Court Room.

Motion of United States that all pleadings,

memoranda, ete. be filed in record, with cert. of

service, filed in Court Room.

= of James F. Manning with Exhibits,

MEMORANDUM on adoption of permanent ap-

portionment plan of Justice Dept., with cert. of

service and attachments, filed in Court Room.

ORDER appointing William D. Neal Associate

Special Master to perform functions indicated.

Clerk of Court will notify all counsel, by copy of

this order, and will make available to Mr. Neal

the right to examine plans, papers and documents

on file in this case, filed and entered OB 1976,

pages 1086-1087. (Copies mailed all attorneys of

record. Copies handed the Judges by Jennie}.

Court Reporter’s Transcript of proceedings held

before Judges Coleman, Russell and Cox in Jack-

son on 06/15/76, filed.

Pitf’s. motion for a prompt and immediate deci-

sion on a final court-ordered legislative reappor-

tionment plan and special elections with cert. of

service and arbitrary notice of motion, filed.

(Frank Parker stated to Iris that he was mailing

file-stamped copies to each of Judges.)

Letter from United States Circuit Judge James

P. Coleman to Clerk of Court dated August 9,

1976 in re to motion of Frank Parker for speedy

disposition, filed. (Copies mailed all attorneys of

record.)

Response of defendants to pltfs’. motion for an

immediate decision, with cert. of service, filed.

(Copies mailed to members of the Three-Judge

Court, per letter from A. F. Summer in file).

Letter from U.S. Cireuit Judge James P. Cole-

man dated 08/10/76 to Clerk requesting that

attorneys be advised that Judge Cox would re-

turn to the office on 08/23/76, filed. (Copies

mailed attys. of record.)

JUDGMENT: Ordered, adjudged and decreed;

9-8-76

1. The permanent plans for the reapportionment

of the Legislature of St. of Miss., as hereinafter

set forth, shall be in force and effect for the regu-

lar quadrennial elections of 1979 and thereafter

until altered according to law. 2. Except in those

instances in which a special election may herein-

after be ordered, these plans shall not affect the

terms of office of legislators elected in 1975. 3. In

the event of the death or resignation of a legisla-

tor presently in office, the vacancy shall be filled

by a special election in that district promulgated

for 1979 in which the legislator shall have resided

at the time of such death or resignation. 4. The

removal by a legislator of his residency from one

place to another within the district for which he

was elected in 1975 shall not affect the term of

office for which he was elected. Further OR-

DERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

the 52 members of the Mississippi State Senate

to be chosen in the quadrennial election year of

1979 shall be elected from the districts consisting

of specified counties, beats and precincts as set

out, filed and entered OB 1976, pages 1578-1619. .

(Copies handed attys. of record and mailed Jus-

tice Dept. Copies handed Press at request of

Judge Coleman at no charge)

DECREE: for the regular quadrennial elections

of 1979 and thereafter until changed according to

law the 122 members of the MISSISSIPPI

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES shall be

elected from 122 districts as set out. We now

direct the parties within 15 days to file a list of

districts, if any, for the election of representa-

tives in which special elections should be held,

assigning their reasons as to each district and

the Court will rule thereon as quickly as reason-

ably possible. This is not a final decree. The final

decree, incorporating all decrees, will be entered

when the Court disposes with the matter of spe-

cial elections, filed and entered OB 1976, pages

1680-1714 (Copies handed attys. of record and

mailed Justice Dept. Copies handed Press at re-

quest of Judge Coleman)

9-8-76

9-16-76

9-20-76

9-23-76

9-28-76

9-29-76

Motion of plaintiffs for Special Election Relief

as to certain senatorial districts established by

Court’s Judgment of 8-24-76, with cert. of service,

filed (Copy handed Glenda for Judge Cox and

mailed Judges Russell & Coleman)

Defendants’ submission pursuant to order, with

cert. of service, filed. (Copies mailed three

Judges per Giles Bryant)

Proposal by the United States for special elec-

tions, with attachment and cert. of service, filed.

(Copies sent to the Judges at their homes per

letter from Justice Dept.)

Pitf’s. motion for special elections (House Plan),

with cert. of service and attachment, filed. (Cop-

ies mailed to Three Judges per Frank Parker’s

Secretary)

Pitf’s. motion to alter and amend judgment and

pltfs’. objections to 1976 Court-Ordered Legisla-

tive Reapportionment Plan with cert. of service

and Exhibits A thru E, filed. (Copy of letter

showing copies mailed to Three Judges by Frank

Parker)

Copy of letter from Judge Coleman to Frank R.

Parker dated 09/22/76 re hearing on motion and

informal conference, filed.

Copy of letter from Ashley Atkinson of Miss.

House of Representatives to Judge Coleman

dated 09/21/76 with Exhibits A thru E re Pike

and Amite Counties, filed.

Defts’. submission pursuant to Order of 9-8-76

and objections to request for special elections,

with cert. of service, filed. (Copies mailed three

Judges per Giles Bryant).

Proposal by the United States for special elec-

tions, with attachment and cert. of service, filed.

(Copies sent to the Judges at their homes, per

letter from Justice Dept.)

Copy of letter dated 9-28-76 from William D.

Neal to Hon. J. P. Coleman, re: his recommenda-

tion to the Court, which is in line with the sugges-

tions made by Messrs. Atkinson and Walman as

well as with that made by Frank R. Parker, as to

House Districts 98 & 99, involving Amite and

10-7-76

10-8-76

10-21-76

10-22-76

11-12-76

11-18-76

Pike Counties, showing copies being mailed all

attys. and Judges.

Memo from Special Master, William D. Neal,

filed.

Pitf’s. supplement to motion to alter or amend

judgment, with cert. of service and Exhibit A,

filed. (Copies handed Judges on 10/07/76 per

Frank Parker)

Copy of letter from Frank R. Parker dated

10/19/76 addressed to Judges Coleman, Cox and

Russell re conference of 10/07/76 with Exhibits

A &B, filed.

Objection of the United States to plans for the

redistricting of the Mississippi Senate and House

of Representatives contained in the Court orders

of 08/24 and Sept. 8, 1976, with Exhibits A thru

F and cert. of service, filed. (Letter stated copies

were mailed to Judges at~their homes.)

ORDER: PER CURIAM: Reapportionment of

House of Representatives is amended as set out.

No special election will be held in newly created

senatorial district. No special election will be

held in Districts 52 and 81. Special elections will

be held in Districts 79 and 97. Remaining District

will have no special elections. Time for Special

Elections will be delayed until time for appeal

has expired or Supreme Court has decided an ap-

peal on merits. Court will retain jurisdiction for

setting dates for special elections. No attorney

fees are allowable. Fees for Special Master will

be determined after hearing and Court retains

jurisdiction. Pltfs. and Department of Justice

will submit proposed judgment and when duly

approved and entered, same will be final judg-

ment on reapportionment on Miss. Legislature,

filed and entered OB 1976, pages 2127-2144.

(Copies handed all attys. of record.) (Three

Judges already had copies.)

FINAL JUDGMENT: Defts. are permanently

restrained as set out: Reapportionment plans

are ordered in effect for regular quadrennial

elections of 1979 and until altered according to

law; Plans shall not affect terms of legislators

11-18-76

11-29-76

12-83-76

12-13-76

elected in 1975 except as special elections are

ordered in House Districts 79 and 97 on a date

set by the Court; Court retains jurisdiction for

purpose of setting dates for special elections;

Except as set out ail objections and motions by

pitfs. and Dept. of Justice are denied; All costs

are adjudged against defts., which will be entered

against State of Mississippi when amount is com-

puted; Pitf’s. request for award of atty’s fees is

denied; Fees to be allowed special masters shall

be taxed against State of Mississippi and amount

to be determined after hearing, for which juris-

diction is retained; Except for injunctive relief,

and subject of Court’s retention of jurisdiction,

the complaint and amended complaints are dis-

missed, filed and entered OB 1976, pages 2180-

2200. (Copies handed Mr. Parker and mailed

other attys. of record. Copy handed Glenda for

Judge Cox and mailed Judges Coleman and

Russell. )

FINAL JS 6 CARD FILED.

Pitf’s. Notice of Appeal to U. S. Supreme Court

from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Final Judgment

entered on 11/18/76, filed.

Cash Appeal Bond in the amount of $250.00, filed.

Pitfs’. motion to alter or amend judgment, with

Affidavits of Frank R. Parker, Prof. Gordon G.

Henderson and James W. Loewen attached as

Appendix A, B, & C respectively and cert. of serv-

ice, filed. (Mr. Parker stated that he is sending

file stamped copies to each of the three Judges).

Letter from Mr. William D. Neal to Hon. J. P.

Coleman dated 12-8-76, with written analysis by

Special Master of pitf’s. objections in his motion

to alter or amend Judgment under date of

11-29-76 attached thereto, original and one copy

mailed to Hon. J. P. Coleman, one copy mailed

Judge Russell and one copy handed Judge Cox,

by Glenda but not filed with Clerk, per instrue-

tions of Mr. Neal.

CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF SU-

PREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Requests to treat application as an expedited ap-

os eS ae

wD cease her IE.

12-20-76

12-21-76

12-27-76

12-28-76

12-30-76

peal are granted, and probable jurisdiction is

noted. Parties may file and exchange such mo-

tions under Rule 16 as they desire, and they shall

file and exchange briefs on the merits on or be-

fore the close of business Monday, 2-7-77. Re-

sponsive briefs, if any, shall be filed and ex-

changed on or before the close of business

Monday, 2-21-77. Oral argument is set for Mon-

day, 2-28-77. Any and all other appeals from

judgment be taken by filing notices of appeal and

perfected pursuant to the Rules of the Court by

filing statements as to jurisdiction on or before

the close of business Wednesday, 1-5-77, filed and

entered OB 1976, page 2397. (Copies mailed

Judges Coleman & Russell and handed Glenda

for Judge Cox)

Letter from U. S. Cireuit Judge James P. Cole-

man dated 12/17/76 to Clerk of Court, with at-

tached ANALYSIS BY SPECIAL MASTER of

pitf’s. objections in his motion to alter or amend

judgment, filed. (Copies mailed all attys. of

record. )

ORDER AMENDING PREVIOUS JUDG-

MENT for Legislative districts as indicated;

Remaining objections filed by pltfs. are found to

be without merit and will be overruled, filed

and entered OB 1976, pages 2475-2479. (Copies

mailed all attys. of record, and Judges Coleman

and Russell. Copy handed Glenda for Judge

Cox.)

Pitf’s. Notice of Appeal to U. S. Supreme Court

from Final Judgment entered on 11/18/76 as

amended by the Order Amending Previous Judg-

ment entered 12/21/76, with cert. of service, filed.

Pitf’s. Cash Appeal Bond in the amount of

$250.00 paid into Registry.

U.S.A., Pitf.-Intervenor’s Notice of Appeal to

U. S. Supreme Court the Final Judgment of the

Three-Judge Dist. Court entered on 11/18/76, as

amended by Order entered on 12/21/76, with

cert. of service, filed.

Notice of Appeal of Cliff Finch, Governor, ete. to

Supreme Court of United States from Para-

graphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Final Judgment

12-30-76

entered on 11/17/76, and the order entered

12/21/76, amending the Final Judgment, with

cert. of service, filed.

Bond for Costs with United States Fidelity and

Pw a Company in the amount of $250.00,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

Peggy J. Connor, Anne E. Taylor,

Augusta Wheadon, Ralthus Hayes,

Catherine Crowell, Henry J. Kirk-

sey, Elijah Conwell, Jr., Alma Car-

negie for themselves and others

similarly situated, and Tae Missis-

sipp! Freepom Democratic Party

PLAINTIFFS,

—against— CIVIL NO. 3830

Pau. B. Jonnson, Governor of Mis- eee: Oct. 19, 1965

sissippi, Joz Patrrerson, Attorney-

General of Mississippi, Heper Lap-

neR, the Secretary of State of

Mississippi, Watter Sriers, the

Speaker of the Mississippi House

of Representatives, Grorce Yar-

BROUGH, the President Pro Tempore

of the Mississippi Senate,

DEFENDANTS.

I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1. This action arises under United States Code Title 42,

Section 1983 and Section 1988, and under the Constitution

of the United States, particularly Article IV, Section 4, the

Fourteenth Article of Amendment thereto, and the Fifteenth

Article of Amendment thereto. Jurisdiction is conferred on

this Court by United States Code, Title 28, Section 1343,

Title 28, Sections 2201 and 2202, Title 22, Sections 2281 et

seq., and Title 42 Sections 1983 and 1988.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs Connor, Taylor, Wheadon, Crowell, Kirksey,

Conwell, Jr., Carnegie and Hayes, are United States citi-

zens, citizens of the State of Mississippi, Negro residents

respectively of Forrest, Forrest, Lowndes, Lauderdale,

Hinds, Bolivar, Holmes, and Holmes Counties, residents of

the Ist, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 22nd Senatorial Districts and

residents of the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Congressional

Districts. Each of them is a registered and qualified voter

of the said State of Mississippi, lawfully entitled to vote in

all primary, general and special elections for members of

the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, and for mem-

bers of the House of Representatives of the United

States from their Congressional District. Plaintiffs Connor,

Taylor, Crowell, Carnegie and Hayes are United States

citizens, citizens of the State of Mississippi, Negro residents

of Forrest, Lauderdale, and Holmes Counties, residents of

the 4th, 8th, and 22nd Senatorial Districts who have, prior

to December 1, 1964, been unlawfully prevented from exer-

cising their right to vote in primary, general and/or special

elections for members of the Legislature of the State of

Mississippi. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party is

a voluntary unincorporated association of residents and

citizens of the State of Mississippi interested in freely

exercising their right to vote and to participate fully in the

political life of that State, which brings this suit on its own

behalf and on behalf of its members. Plaintiffs jointly and

severally bring this action on their own behalf and on the

behalf of all other citizens of the State of Mississippi who

are similarly situated, such persons being so numerous as

to make it impractical to bring them all before this Court.

3. The defendant Johnson is sued in his capacity as Gov-

ernor of the State of Mississippi and a member of the State

Board of Elections Commissioners; as such he is vested with

certain authority in connection with elections of members to

the Mississippi Legislature.

The defendant Patterson is sued in his capacity as

Attorney-General of the State of Mississippi, and a member

of the State Board of Election Commissioners; as such he is

vested with certain authority in connection with elections of

members to the Mississippi Legislature.

The defendant Ladner is sued in her capacity as Secretary

of State of Mississippi and a member of the State Board of

Election Commissioners; as such she has certain authority

in connection with elections of members to the Mississippi

Legislature.

The defendant Sillers is sued in his capacity as Speaker

of the Mississippi House of Representatives; he is the pre-

siding officer of that body, and is here sued as a representa-

tive of all presently acting members of said House, such

members constituting a class so numerous as to make it

impractical to bring them all before this Court.

The defendant Yarbrough is sued in his capacity as

President Pro Tempore of the Mississippi Senate, and he is

the presiding officer of that body, and is here sued as the

representative of all presently acting members of said

Senate, such members constituting a class so numerous as

to make it impractical to bring them all before this Court.

4. Common questions of law and fact are involved as to

each plaintiff and each defendant named herein, and com-

mon relief is sought against each defendant named herein.

Ill. THE DILUTION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE

5. The present apportionment scheme for the State Legis-

lature and Congressional districts, from which the incum-

bent State Senators, State Representatives and United

States Representatives were elected, establishes irrational,

invidious, discriminatory and unequal districts which have

in the past and presently deprive plaintiffs and all others

similarly situated of rights guaranteed them by the Consti-

tution of the United States and the State of Mississippl.

a. As to the Mississippi House of Representatives, Issa-

quena County has a population of 3,576 and one representa-

tive, while Forrest County has a population of 52,722 and

two representatives or a representative for each 26,361.

Thus the vote cast by a person in Issaquena County is worth

7.4 times as much as a vote cast by a person in Forrest

County. There is likewise a gross disparity in the value of

votes cast for representatives by persons in other counties

in the state. (All figures are compiled from the 1960 Census

Report.) 5M

b. A majority of members of the Mississippi House of

Representatives is elected by as few as 878,551 out of a

population of 2,163,422 or 40.3% of the population control

a majority of seats of said body.

c. Each of the 82 representative districts in the State of

Mississippi should contain 17,034 persons to be apportioned

on a strict population basis. At present, 53 of said 82 dis-

triets deviate from this norm by more than 15%. Of the

deviations, 24 exceed the norm by more than 15% while 29

fail to meet the norm by more than 15%.

d. As to the Senate, district 44 has a population per

senator of 20,987 while district 1 has a population per sena-

tor of 187,045. Therefore, a vote cast in district 44 is worth

8.5 times as much as a vote cast in district 1. There is like-

wise a gross disparity in the value of votes cast for senators

by persons in other counties in the state. Each vote in dis-

trict 36 is worth 4.8 times as much as a vote in district 2.

e. A majority of votes in the Senate represents as few

as 820,249 persons out of a total state population of 2,163,422

or 37.7% of the population of the state control a majority

of votes in the State Senate.

f. Each of the 49 senatorial districts should have a popu-

lation of 41,887 persons per senator to be apportioned on a

strict population basis. At present 32 of the said 49 districts

deviate from this norm by more than 15%. Of the deviations

8 exceed the norm by more than 15%, while 24 fail to meet

the norm by more than 15%.

g. As to the Members of the United States House of

Representatives, the five Congressional Districts have a

population as follows:

First District: 364,962

Second District: 608,441

Third District: 460,100

Fourth District: 295,072

Fifth District: 449,565

Thus a vote cast in the 4th District is worth more than

twice as much as a vote cast in the 2nd District.

h. Each of the Congressional Districts should contain

435,628 persons to be apportioned on a strict population

' basis. At present, 3 of the 5 districts deviate from this norm

hy more than 15%. Of the deviations, 1 exceeds the norm

by more than 15%, while 2 fail to meet the norm by more

than 15%.

IV. THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE

6. Up to and including the date of the election of the

present Legislature of the State of Mississippi, there has

been a systematic denial of the right to vote to Negro citi-

zens of the State of Mississippi who constitute approxi-

mately 42% of the population of the State. Said denial of

the right to vote has been effectuated by the following

methods :

a. The passage and/or enforcement of legislation inter-

fering with and improperly restricting the right to vote of

Negroes, both openly and through the use of _ devices not

appearing to be directed towards disfranchising Negro

citizens but in fact having that purpose and effect ; ;

b. Violence and intimidation by public officials, including

many elected to office, consisting of assault on Negroes who

have attempted to register and others who accompany them

to register, and physical intimidation of those suspected of

desirmg to vote or aiding others exercising their right to

vote; . * .

ce. Action by public officials condoning private violence,

including refusals to protect Negroes and prevent assaults

upon them and refusals to ascertain the facts and punish the

wrongdoers, when such assaults have taken place ;

d. Economic retaliation against Negroes who seek to

sisting of taking pictures of those who attempt to register ;

the printing of the names and addresses of those who wish

to register and the requiring of Negroes to return to the

registrar’s office to determine whether he has passed the

test and other devices; all aimed at endangering the per-

sonal economic position of any Negro attempting to exercise

his right to vote. ae

e. Misuse of broad discretion by local officials involved

in the administration of laws having to do with the right to

vote, including the application of different and more string-

ent standards to Negro applicants than to white, rejection

of the applications of qualified Negroes, rejection of

Negroes who have equal or superior qualifications than

whites who were accepted ;

f. Delays, obstruction, technical obstacles, and refusal of

routine administrative assistance by voter registrars to

Negroes, including subjecting Negro applicants for registra-

tion to procedures different from those applied to white

applicants, refusals to permit Negroes to apply, unreason-

able delays, denying Negroes assistance but furnishing as-

sistance and answers to whites, falsely advising Negroes

that they failed the test, and refusals by registrars to see

and process Negro applicants.

g. Each of such methods has likewise been used to prevent

and obstruct the right of Negroes to run for office or be

nominated or be a candidate in both primary and general

elections.

7. As a result of such denials no Negro was elected to or

now sits as a member of the Mississippi legislature or the

Congress of the United States from Mississippi.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

8. The facts herein alleged constitute a denial to the plain-

tiffs of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed to

them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

9. The facts herein alleged constitute a violation of the

right to vote of the plaintiffs under the Fifteenth Amend-

ment to the United States Constitution.

10. The facts herein alleged constitute a denial to the

plaintiffs of their right to a republican form of government,

in violation of Article I, Section 4 of the United States

Constitution.

11. The facts herein alleged constitute a violation of the

Constitution and statute and common laws of the State of

Mississippi regarding the conduct of elections and matters

ancillary thereto.

12. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are suffer-

ing irreparable injury to their aforesaid rights by reason of

said facts. They have no plain, adequate or complete rem-

edy to redress these wrongs other than by this suit for

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Any other

remedy would be attended by such uncertainties and delays

as to deny substantive relief, and would cause further irrep-

arable injury, damage, expense, and inconvenience to plain-

tiffs and all others similarly situated.

VI. BASIS FOR THE SPECIFIC RELIEF

REQUESTED

13. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have no

adequate political remedy for the wrongs resulting from the

denial to them of the right to vote because the Mississippi

Legislature as presently constituted is inherently incapable

of securing the constitutional rights of said plaintiffs for

the reasons that:

a. Negro citizens have been and are systematically ex-

cluded from participation in the election of the present

Legislature as well as of past Legislatures in violation of

the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

b. The Mississippi Legislature has consistently, syste-

matically and purposefully discriminated against Negro

citizens of Mississippi. Such discrimination evidences the

incapacity of this Legislature to protect and enforce the

constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

14. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated have no

adequate political remedy for the wrongs resulting from

the dilution of their right to vote because the Mississippi

Legislature as presently constituted is inherently incapable

of preparing a valid reapportionment plan consistent with

the United States Constitution for the reasons that:

a. The apportionment plan under which the Legislature

was elected was adopted only three (3) years ago, and yet

is on its face unconstitutional ;

b. The present Legislature controls the process by which

the Mississippi Constitution is amended. The history of

past Legislatures in general and of this Legislature in par-

ticular demonstrates that a primary purpose and effect of

its acts has been to continue the dominion of those groups

presently in control of it at the expense of the plaintiffs and

all others similarly situated. Not only the establishment of

state legislative and Congressional districts of unequal size,

but also the determination of the boundaries for such dis-

tricts, may and in all likelihood will be utilized by the pres-

ent Mississippi Legislature for this purpose.

15. Unless this Court grants the relief prayed for herein,

the result will be the continued sitting of a legislature un-

constitutionally elected in a derogation of the constitutional

rights of the plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.

Said Legislature would continue to sit until January of 1969

and exercise direct governmental power in said State. Plain-

tiffs and others similarly situated have been, are and will be

denied fair representation in the halls of their State Govern-

ment for a period of over three (3) years duration. During

this said period, legislative action and inaction will occur

which will directly affect the most fundamental interests of

the plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The unconsti-

tutionally elected legislators are responsible for the educa-

tional needs of the plaintiffs and others similarly situated,

as well as the health and welfare of the said plaintiffs. The

Legislature is responsible for public safety, the administra-

tion of criminal justice and for the protection of the consti-

tutional liberties of said plaintiffs. Said legislators will

have responsibility and influence over Federal programs de-

signed to meet pressing social and economic problems of

many of the State’s citizens, such as the Federal anti-

poverty programs, aid to education, urban renewal pro-

grams, and public housing programs. Plaintiffs and all

others similarly situated have a constitutional right to rep-

resentation, which right has been and is presently denied,

and the restoration of which cannot be permitted to await

action by the present Legislature of the State of M’ssissippi

or the expiration of its term.

VII. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

16. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated, pray that this Court:

a. Assume jurisdiction in this matter and convene a statu-

tory three-judge court pursuant to Title 22, United States

Code Sections 2281 et seq. [sic]

b. Declare plaintiffs’ rights to the effect that the present

Mississippi Legislature was elected and is sitting in viola-

tion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu-

tion, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution

and Article IV, Section 4 thereof.

e. Declare plaintiffs’ rights to the effect that the present

scheme of apportionment of the Mississippi Legislature and

of Congressional Districts in the State of Mississippi vio-

lates the aforesaid provisions of the United States Constitu-

tion; and that the sections of the Mississippi Constitution

and statutes relating to such apportionment, or providing

or permitting discrimination against any citizen of the State

of Mississippi because of his race or color, now in effect or

in effect for the elections conducted for the incumbent

members of the Mississippi Legislature or the incumbent

members of Congress from Mississippi, are unconstitutional

as repugnant to the United States Constitution and there-

fore are null, void, frustrate and of no effect.

Further, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, pray this court to issue a temporary and

permanent injunction to:

d. Enjoin defendants from carrying out each and any

consitutional or legislative duty or right pertaining to

the conduct of the legislative business of the State of

Mississippi.

e. Enjoin the conduct of any primary, general or special

election for the Mississippi State Legislature until such

time as this Court finds that the plaintiffs possess the rights

guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States.

f. Require the defendants to take such action as may be

appropriate to remedy the denial by them of the right to

vote to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

g. Appoint a special master to prepare a plan of appor-

tionment for the House of Representatives and the Senate

of the State of Mississippi, and the Congressional Districts

of the State of Mississippi, in such manner as to take into

account all factors relevant to the protection of the rights

of the plaintiffs and the Negro residents and voters of the

State of Mississippi.

h. Require the holding of a special election for the said

House and Senate when the foregoing has been accom-

plished.

i. Further, the plaintiffs pray that this Court allow the

plaintiffs their cost herein including reasonable attorney

fees.

j. Further, plaintiffs pray that this Court retain juris-

diction to supervise and guarantee the proper performance

of the foregoing, and to grant such other and further relief

as to this Court seems just, equitable and proper.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

/s/ L. H. Rosenthal

L. H. RosentHaL

Suite 406

518 E. Capitol St.

Jackson, Mississippi

PETER MaRcusE

49 Leavenworth St.

Waterbury, Connecticut

KunstTLer, Kunstier & Kinoy

by: William M. Kunstler and

Arthur Kinoy

511 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York

Situ, Waurzer, Jones & PEEBLES

by: Benjamin Smith

Bruce C. Waltzer

1006 Baronne Building

New Orleans, Louisiana

Morton Stavis

744 Broad Street

Newark, New Jersey

Cart RacHuin

38 Park Row

New York, New York

Metvin L. WuLr

A.C. L. U.

156 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York

ALVIN BRONSTEIN

603 Farish Street

Jackson, Mississippi

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 19

MAY 17, 1971

PERCENTAGE VOTES CAST IN FEBRUARY, 1968

ELECTION FOR CHARLES EVERS, CANDIDATE

FOR CONGRESS IN THE PRECINCTS LOCATED IN

THE COGNIZABLE RACIAL MINORITY CONCEN-

TRATION (CRMC).

SOURCE: Voting records are taken from the Recapitula-

tion Sheets of the Hinds County Democratic Executive

Committee, certified copies being filed with the Clerk of the

Court. CRMC figures are 1970 Census, Bureau of the

Census. Precincts are those in effect at the time of the

election.

Percent Enumerator Percent

of Vote Districts in Black Population

Precinct for Evers Precinct in Enumerator

Number in Precinct within CRMC Districts

5 82.1 56, 57, 58 99.045

7 74.4 61, 59, 60, 99.093

22 43.8 19, 20, 35 98.701

23 77.7 20, 21, 31, 79.579

33, 36, 37

24 81.1 21, 23, 26 98.080

25 72.1 29, 30, 34 95.209

26 69.2 56, 62, 70 96.944

28 61.7 69, 70 98.944

29 56.2 24, 28, 29 86.652

40 60.5 100 91.909

41 75.7 105 99.142

43 76.7 106, 107, 130, 99.435

131, 133

PERCENTAGE VOTES CAST IN AUGUST, 1967 ELEC-

TION FOR JACOB L. REDDIX, CANDIDATE FOR

REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE PRECINCTS LOCATED

IN THE COGNIZABLE RACIAL MINORITY CONCEN-

TRATION (CRMC).

SOURCE: Voting records are taken from the Recapitula-

tion Sheets of the Hinds County Democratic Executive

Committee, certified copies being filed with the Clerk of the

Court. CRMC figures are 1970 Census, Bureau of the

Census. Precincts are those in effect at the time of the

election.

PERCENTAGE VOTES CAST IN AUGUST, 1967 ELEC-

TION FOR EDDIE H. TUCKER, CANDIDATE FOR

REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE PRECINCTS LOCATED

IN THE COGNIZABLE RACIAL MINORITY CONCEN-

TRATION (CRMC).

SOURCE: Voting records are taken from the Recapitula-

tion Sheets of the Hinds County Democratic Executive

Committee, certified copies being filed with the Clerk of the

Court. CRMC figures are 1970 Census, Bureau of the Cen-

sus. Precincts are those in effect at the time of the election.

Percent Enumerator Percent

of Vote Districts in Black Population

Precinct for Reddix Precinct in Enumerator

Number in Precinct within CRMC Districts

5 76.5 56, 57, 58 99.045

7 62.6 57, 59, 60, 99.093

22 46.7 19, 20, 35 98.701

23 68.9 20, 21, 31, 79.579

33, 36, 37

24 65.1 21, 23, 26 98.080

25 60.3 29, 30, 34 95.209

26 57.7 56, 62, 70 96.944

28 53.3 69, 70 98.944

40 54.0 100 91.909

41 71.1 105 99.142

43 70.2 106, 107, 130, 99.435

131, 133

Percent Enumerator Percent

of Vote Districts in Black Population

Precinct for Tucker Precinct in Enumerator

Number in Precinct within CRMC Districts

5 63.8 56, 57, 58 99.045

7 53.9 57, 59, 60, 99.093

22 36.7 19, 20, 35 98.701

23 58.4 20, 21, 31, 79.579

33, 36, 37

24 59.6 21, 23, 26 98.080

25 52.6 29, 30, 34 95.209

26 49.2 56, 62, 70 96.944

28 40.7 69, 70 98.944

29 34.2 24, 28, 29 86.652

40 39.8 100 : 91.909

41 59.3 105 99.142

43 57.4 106, 107, 130, 99.435

OFFICE oF THE CrrcuIT CLERK

Hinps County

H. T. Ashford, Jr. Clerk

Jackson, Mississippi

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

COUNTY HINDS

I, H. T. Ashford, Jr., Clerk of the Cireuit Clerk in and for

the said State and County do hereby certify that the above

and foregoing is a true and correct copy of Pages 3 and 4 of

the recapitulation sheets of the election held on August 8,

1967 and the complete recapitulation sheets of the election

held on the 27th of February, 1968, prepared by the Hinds

County Democratic Executive Committee and filed in this

office.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Cireuit Court

at Jackson, Mississippi this the 12th day of May, 1971.

H. T. Ashford Jr. Cireuit Clerk

By /s/ Sara C. Putnam D.C.

[ Recapitulation Sheets Omitted]

Transcript of Proceedings

United States District Court

Southern District of Mississippi

Jackson Division

February 7, 1975

[59] BY MR. PARKER:

No, Your Honor, be glad to, in fact I intended to ask the

Court to take judicial notice of the record in that Hinds

County redistricting case.

BY JUDGE COLEMAN:

I will upon the request state now that this Court will

take judicial notice of all the proceedings in the Kirksey

case.

Unrtep States District Court

SouTHERN District oF MIssIssIPP!

JacKson Dtvision

Prcey J. Connor, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

Civil Action No. 3830

= - — Biled: April 11, 1975

Wituiam L. WALLER, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS. |

JUDGMENT

It appearing to the Court that the Legislature has re-

cently enacted Senate Bill No. 2976 and House Bill No.

1290 reapportioning the Senate and House of Representa-

tives within the State of Mississippi and that this Court

has made no final decision on the 1971 reapportionment case

before it and the Court is of the opinion that such 1971 and

prior reapportionments proceedings before it should now

be finally dismissed without prejudice and that the parties

should be required to file an amended complaint involving

only the 1975 reapportionment proceedings to simplify the

current matter and the issues before the Court;

As managing judge in this case and by direction of the

entire Court, it is Ordered and Adjudged by the Court:

(1) That the entire proceedings before this Court in-

volving the 1967 and the 1971 reapportionment of the Legis-

lature are hereby dismissed without prejudice ;

(2) That the plaintiffs in this case are directed to file

in this cause, as Civil Action No. 3830(A), an amended

complaint to attack said 1975 enactments of the Legislature

of Mississippi withir five (5) days after receipt of a copy of

this order;

(3) That the defendants shall file their answers thereto

within five (5) days after receipt of a copy of such amended

complaint.

This is a matter of extreme importance at this time and

time is important to both sides and this Court upon receipt

of such pleadings will immediately proceed to convene and

conduct a hearing on the questions presented and make a

prompt and proper disposition thereof. A copy of the

pleadings of the parties shall be mailed directly to the three

members of this Court at their proper addresses by the

parties.

SO ORDERED this April 10th, 1975.

/s/ Harold Cox

Unrrep States District Jupee

In tHE Unirep Srates District Court ror THE

SouTHERN District oF MISssISSsIPPI

Jackson Division

Civil Action No. 3830(A) (Three-Judge Court)

Filed April 15, 1975

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

OTHER EquitasBLe RELIEF

[Caption Omitted]

A. Jurisdiction

1. Plaintiffs file this Amended Complaint for Injunctive

and Other Equitable Relief pursuant to this Court’s Order

of April 11, 1975. The successors in office of the original

defendants are substituted for their predecessors in office

pursuant to Rule 25(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and are sued individually and in their official capacities.

2. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the enforce-

ment, implementation and/or administration of House Bill

1290, Laws of Mississippi, 1975 Regular Session, and Senate

Bill 2976, Laws of Mississippi, 1975 Regular Session as

violative of plaintiffs’ rights secured by Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973¢, the Fourteenth

and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu-

tion, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and 1983. Plaintiffs fur-

ther seek approval by this Court of a statewide, single-

member legislative redistricting plan for both houses of the

Mississippi Legislature as a remedy for the violations of

plaintiffs’ rights.

3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and this

Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(d) and 1973}(f). A three-judge Dis-

trict Court is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 2281 and 42

U.S.C. § 1973e.

B. Count One: Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965

4. The State of Mississippi and all of its political sub-

divisions are covered by and included within the prohibi-

tions and provisions of Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a).

5. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976. Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

were enacted by the 1975 Regular Session of the Mississippi

Legislature, and signed by Governor William L. Waller.

Together they constitute a legislative redistricting plan for

the Mississippi House of Representatives and Mississippi

Senate which substantially altered and changed the prior

districts as established by the Mississippi Legislature in

1971, Mississippi Code Annotated $4 5-1-1 and 5-1-3 (1972).

6. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

constitute a standard, practice, and procedure with respect

to voting different from that in force or effect on November

1, 1964, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 197°c, as amended.

7. Neither the State oi Mississippi, or any of the de-

fendants or their attorneys, nor the chief legal officer of

the State of Mississippi have submitted H.B. 1290 or S.B.

2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., to the United States

Attorney General for review and clearance under Section 5

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 4 1973e, nor has

the State of Mississippi, nor any of the defendants or their

attorneys, nor the chief legal officer of the State of Missis-

sippi instituted an action in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Section 5 of

the Voting Rights Act for a declaratory judgment that such

statutes do not have the purpose and will not have the effect

of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of

race or color.

8. The State of Mississippi and the defendants have

enacted and approved H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws,

1975 Reg. Sess., and presently seek to administer such

statutes without obtaining the review and clearance re-

quired by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in

violation of the rights of plaintiffs secured by Section 5 of

the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973e.

C. Count Two: Malapportionment

9. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976 as they provide state legisla-

tive districts are identical to the legislative redistricti

plan ordered by this Court in its judgment of May 18, 1971,

as supplemented by this Court’s order of May 21, 1971,

except for Districts 31, 45, and 46 of H.B. 1290.

10. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

establishing state legislative districts for the elections of

members of the Mississippi House of Representatives and

Mississippi Senate establish irrational, invidiously discrim-

inatory, and unequal districts which have in the past and

presently deprive plaintiffs and all others similarly situated

of rights guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.

11. According to the 1970 U.S. Decennial Census of popu-

lation taken by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Mississippi

had a total population of 2,216,912. Accordingly, the norm,

or ideal population size, for a legislative district for elec-

tion of members to the Mississippi House of Representa-

tives is 18,171 persons, and the norm, or ideal population

size, for a legislative district for election of members to the

Mississippi Senate, is 42,633 persons.

12. The Mississippi House and Senate districts as deter-

mined by H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg.

Sess., are grossly malapportioned, and fail to provide for

substantial equality of population among the legislative

districts.

13. Under H.B. 1290, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., 122

members of the Mississippi House of Representatives are

apportioned among 46 House districts. Exclusive of floterial

districts, which are covered in the next paragraph, H.B.

1290 creates districts for the Mississippi House of Repre-

sentatives which are underrepresented by as much as 9.906%

from the norm of population equality (District 3, DeSoto

and Marshall Counties, total population of 59,912, 3 repre-

sentatives) and which are overrepresented by as much as

9.823% from the norm of population equality (District 18,

Grenada and Montgomery Counties, total population of

32,772, 2 representatives), for a total span of 19.729 per-

centage points of variance from population equality. Of the

46 House districts created, 23 (half), electing 63 of the 122

representatives (more than half), vary from the norm of

population equality in excess of 5% plus or minus. The

ratio of the largest to the smallest district is 1.219 to 1.

14. H.B. 1290, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., provides for

nine floterial districts, which are special multi-member dis-

tricts, in which one or more representatives are elected

from the district at large and one or more representatives

are elected from subdistricts within the whole district con-

sisting of one or more counties or supervisors’ districts

within the district. Use of these floterial districts further

dilutes the weight of the votes in each district and subdis-

trict. H.B. 1290 creates floterial districts which vary from

the norm of population equality by maximum variances of

+38.694% (District 4, Monroe County, 1 representative) to

—24.269% (District 25, Newton County, 1 representative)

for a total span of 62.963 percentage points of variance.

15. Under 8.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., 52

members of the Mississippi Senate are apportioned among

33 Senate districts. Exclusive of floterial districts, which

are covered in the next paragraph, S.B. 2976 creates dis-

tricts for the Mississippi Senate which are underrepre-

sented by as much as 9.584% from the norm of population

equality (District 29, George, Greene, Perry, and Wayne

Counties, total population of 46,719, 1 senator), and which

are overrepresented by as much as 9.319% from the norm

of population equality (District 19, Kemper and Lauderdale

Counties, total population of 77,320, 2 senators), for a total

span of 18.903 percentage points of variance from popula-

tion equality. Of the 33 Senate districts, 18 (more than

half), electing 26 of the 52 senators (half), vary from the

norm of population equality in excess of 5% plus or minus.

The ratio of the largest to the smallest district is 1.208 to 1.

16. S.B. 2976 provides for one floterial district (District

27). In this floterial district the two subdistricts, (1) Cov-

ington, Jefferson Davis, Lawrence, and Marion Counties,

and (2) Jones County, are over-represented by variances of

—5.923% and —10.708 percent respectively, for a total span

of 20.292 percentage points of variance.

17. The Mississippi Legislature, and the defendants, have

failed to make an honest and good faith effort to construct

districts, in both the Mississippi House of Representatives

and the Mississippi Senate, as nearly of equal population as

is practicable.

18. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

fail to produce the minimum deviation from the ideal of

population equality, both above and below the norm, keep-

ing intact political boundaries.

19. In its 1973 Regular Session the Mississippi Legisla-

ture considered and rejected a state legislative reapportion-

ment plan which provided considerably more equality of

population among the state legislative districts than is pro-

vided by H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg.

Sess. On January 3, 1973, the Interim Study Committee on

Legislative Reapportionment submitted proposals for redis-

tricting of the Mississippi House and Mississippi Senate

which would have provided greater equality of population

among the districts and would have minimized variances for

the House districts to +6.8% and —7.9%, for a total span

of only 14.7 percentage points of variance, and minimized

variances for the Senate districts to +6.0% and —6.8%, for

a total span of only 12.8 percentage points of variance. No

districts for either the House or Senate would have had

variances over 8% plus or minus. All county boundaries

were maintained intact. The recommendations of the Interim

Study Committee on Legislative Reapportionment were in-

troduced in the Mississippi House as House Bill 446 and in

the Mississippi Senate as Senate Bill 1701, 1973 Reg. Sess.,

but were not passed in the form in which they were intro-

duced.

20. (a) In its 1975 Regular Session, the Mississippi Leg-

islature considered but rejected state legislative redistrict-

ing plans prepared by Dr. David Valinsky, Chairman and

Professor of the Department of Statistics, Bernard M.

Baruch College, City University of New York, which would

have provided much greater equality of population among

the districts. (b) The Valinsky plan provided single-mem-

ber districts, statewide for both the Mississippi House of

Representatives and the Mississippi Senate. (c) The

Valinsky House plan provided a maximum plus variance of

3.09% and a maximum minus variance of 2.30%, for a total

deviation of 5.39%. (d) The Valinsky Senate plan provided

a maximum plus variance of 1.66% and a maximum minus

variance of 1.73%, for a total deviation of 3.39%. (e) The

Valinsky plan for the House was proposed as Floor Amend-

ment No. 5 to H.B. 1290 by Rep. Robert Donald, but was

defeated by a vote of 4 to 106. (f) The Valinsky plan for

the Senate was considered by the Senate Committee on

Elections but rejected without a floor vote.

21. H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

fail to provide for the maximum possible substantial equal-

ity of population among the House and Senate legislative

districts, unconstitutionally dilute and debase the voting

strength of plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class,

consisting of all registered voters of the State of Missis-

sippi, and unconstitutionally and irrationally enhance or

debase voting strength depending upon the happenstance of

the voter’s area of residence, all in violation of the Four-

teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22. The failure of H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976 to provide

districts which are substantially equal in population and

which conform to constitutional requirements derives in

part from the statutes’ exclusive reliance on county lines as

boundaries for legislative districts, although these statutes

fail even to achieve the maximum population equality which

could be obtained relying exclusively on county boundary

lines. The exclusive use of county lines as boundaries for

legislative districts is irrational, arbitrary, and discrimi-

natory.

D. Count Three: Racial Discrimination

23. (a) Of the 46 districts for election of members of

the Mississippi House of Representatives provided by H.B.

1290, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., 33 districts are multi-

member districts within which representatives are elected

at large from the entire district, and of these 9 are floterial

districts in which representatives are elected from sub-

districts. Of the 33 districts for election of members of the

Mississippi Senate provided by S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975

Reg. Sess., 14 districts are multi-member districts within

which senators are elected at large from the entire district,

and of these 1 is a floterial district in which senators are

elected from subdistricts.

(b) Under H.B. 1290, 109 of the 122 members of the

Mississippi House of Representatives, or 89% of the entire

membership of the House, are elected from multi-member or

floterial districts in which two or more members are elected

from a single district.

sippi Senate, or 63% of the entire membership of the

Senate, are elected from multi-member or floterial districts

in which two or more members are elected from a single

district.

24. (a) H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976 are identical to the

legislative districts in effect for the 1971 state legislative

elections, except for Districts 31, 45, and 46 of H.B. 1290.

(b) Of the 29 Black candidates who ran for the Legisla-

ture in 1971, 28 were defeated.

defeated in 1971, 24 were required to run in multi-member

districts.

25. The multi-member districts provided by H.B. 1290

and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., are invidiously

discriminatory and operate with the purpose and/or effect

of minimizing and cancelling out the voting strength of sub-

stantial numbers of blacks in the Mississippi voting popu-

lation.

26. According to the 1970 U.S. Census of Population,

Bureau of the Census, the population of the State of Missis-

sippi contains 1,393,203 white persons, or 62.85% white,

815,770 black persons, or 36.80% black, and 7,859 other

minority persons, or 0.35% other minorities. Mississippi

has a greater percentage of black persons in its population

than any other state in the United States.

27. (a) From 1890 to the present time, only one black

person, Rep. Robert Clark of Ebeneezer, has been elected

to the Mississippi House of Representatives, and no black

persons have been elected to the Mississippi Senate.

(b) From 1890 to the present time, no Black candidates

for the Mississippi Legislature have been nominated for

legislative office in any party primary.

28. In Mississippi the political processes leading to nomi-

nation and election to the Mississippi Legislature and other

elective positions have discriminated against black persons

and have had the purpose and/or effect of denying to black

persons in Mississippi the opportunities enjoyed by white

persons to participate in the political processes and to elect

legislators of their choice, including, but not limited to:

(a) At least until 1952, the Rules of the Mississippi

Democratic Party excluded blacks from participation in the

Democratic primaries of the State.

(b) At least until 1964, the platforms of the Mississippi

Democratic and Republican parties adopted at their respec-

tive state conventions contained provisions espousing segre-

gation of the races as a principle of those respective parties.

Mississippi law (Miss. Code § 3129 (1956 Recomp.)) barred

from participation in state primaries any person who was

not ‘‘in accord with the statement of the principles of the

party holding such primary, which principles shall have

been declared by the state convention of the party holding

such primary,’’ thus banning all advocates of racial inte-

gration and practically all Mississippi black people from

participating in party primaries.

years thereafter, public schools in the state of Mississippi

were segregated on the basis of race, and dual, bi-racial

school systems were maintained throughout the state.

(d) Prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of

1965, qualified black voters in Mississippi were almost

completely disfranchised, and prevented from registering to

vote, by the racially discriminatory voter registration tests

and procedures established by the Mississippi Legislature

which were suspended by the terms of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965. As of 1964, only an estimated 6.7% of the

voting age black persons in Mississippi had been permitted

to register to vote.

(e) Black candidates for positions in the Mississippi

Legislature have been disqualified from running, and their

names have been kept off the ballot, through the application

of racially discriminatory and unconstitutional qualifying

requirements.

(f) Black people in Mississippi have long suffered from,

and continue to suffer from, the results and effects of

invidious discrimination and treatment in the fields of edu-

cation, employment, economics, health, politics, and others.

Black people in Mississippi suffer from disproportionately

lower income, disproportionately lower educational attain-

ment, disproportionately higher rates of unemployment,

and economic dependence upon often hostile whites, all of

which constitute difficult, often insurmountable barriers to

their free and equal participation in the political processes.

(g) As a result of the above-stated discrimination, voter

registration among blacks in Mississippi is disproportion-

ately lower than white registration.

29. The Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890

in its reapportionment plan for the Mississippi Legislature

diluted Black voting strength and gerrymandered state

legislative districts by :

(a) Increasing the number of representatives in the State

Legislature by 13 and alloting the increase to the white

majority counties ;

(b) Creating subdistricts in at least four majority Black

counties, and carving out majority white single-member

districts to increase white representation in the Mississippi

Legislature and reduce the representation of Black con-

stituencies ;

tive districts, and dividing the state into three constitutional

apportionment districts, and permanently assigning each

apportionment district one-third of the members of the

House of Representatives, thus limiting the representation

from the majority Black counties concentrated in the Delta

and River Counties.

30. The Mississippi election statutes are designed to and

have the purpose and effect of depriving black candidates

for legislative office in at-large, or multi-member districts,

of the opportunity to be elected and enhance the opportunity

for racial discrimination :

(a) Miss. Code Ann. § 23-3-69 (1972) requires that can-

didates receive a majority of the votes cast to secure nom-

ination in the Democratic primary, which in most parts of

Mississippi is tantamount to election.

(b) Miss. Code Ann. §3110 (1956 Recomp.) requires

that in primaries for selection of nominees for legislative

office, voters must vote for the full number of candidates to

be nominated, and single-shot voting is prohibited and

single-shot votes are rejected.

lative office must run by posts limiting candidates for

legislative office from a multi-member district to a specific

**post’’ on the ballot.

31. Since 1965, the Mississippi Legislature has not been

adequately responsive to the interests of the black popula-

tion in Mississippi, has passed legislation which is racially

discriminatory in purpose and/or effect, including uncon-

stitutional aid to racially segregated private schools and

unconstitutional and unlawful election laws designed to

prevent black candidates for party or public office from

gaining a place on the ballot or being elected, and has failed

to consider or enact bills which have been introduced which

were designed to serve the best interests of the black popu-

lation of the state.

32. The multi-member state legislative districts estab-

lishud by H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg.

Sess., are invidiously discriminatory and have the purpose

and/or effect of minimizing and cancelling out the voting

strength of black voters in Mississippi:

(a) According to the 1970 U.S. Census of Population,

25 of Mississippi’s 82 counties are majority black in popu-

lation. Under H.B. 1290 (Mississippi House), 24 of these

25 majority black counties are included within multi-mem-

ber and multi-county districts, whereas disproportionately

fewer majority white counties are included within multi-

member and multi-county districts. Under S.B. 2976 (Mis-

sissippi Senate), 17 of these 25 majority black counties are

included within multi-member and multi-county districts,

whereas disproportionately fewer majority white counties

are included within multi-member and multi-county dis-

tricts.

(b) Under H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, substantial concen-

trations of black population sufficiently populous and com-

pact to form single-member districts for the Mississippi

House and Senate are combined with larger concentrations

of white population to create multi-member and multi-

county districts with over-all white majorities, thus diluting,

submerging, and cancelling out black voting strength. Thus,

in H.B. 1290, seven black majority counties whose popula-

tions exceed or come close to the norm—Marshall, Panola,

Noxubee, Kemper, Madison, Claiborne, and Jefferson Davis,

and in S.B. 2976, eight black majority counties whose popu-

lations exceed or come close to the norm—Marshall, Panola,

Carroll, Noxubee, Kemper, Claiborne, Copiah, and Jeffer-

son Davis—are combined with white majority counties to

create over-all white majority districts, thus effectively

cancelling out black voting strength in those counties.

compact Black population large enough to form majority

Black single members districts, such as Lowndes (16,236

Black persons), Warren (18,355 Black persons), Lauderdale

(20,630 Black persons), and Adams (17,865 Black persons),

two or more representatives in H.B. 1290 are elected in at-

large voting, thus submerging substantial Black population

concentrations sufficiently large to constitute majority Black

single-member districts in county-wide and district-wide

white population and voting majorities, thus diluting and

cancelling out Black voting strength.

(d) Many of the multi-member and multi-county districts

created by H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976 are exceedingly large,

casting a special and often insurmountable burden on black

candidates, whose financial resources are disproportion-

ately more limited than those of white candidates, of financ-

ing successful campaigns in those districts.

33. (a) H.B. 1290 provides with regard to House Dis-

trict 31 that two Representatives shall be residents of and

elected by each of the five supervisors’ districts of Hinds

County, and two shall be elected by the county at large.

(b) Since Black persons constitute only 39% of the popu-

lation and only 34% of the voting age population of Hinds

County (1970 Census), and since racial bloc voting gener-

ally prevails in Hinds County, the at-large feature dilutes

and cancels out Black voting strength in Hinds County and

prevents the substantial Black population (84,064 Black

persons) (1970 Census) from electing Representatives of

their choice.

approved by the Board of Supervisors of Hinds County in

1973 constitute a racial gerrymander and dilute and frag-

ment Black voting strength. Each of the five proposed

supervisors’ districts contains a white voting age and regis-

tered majority. If the United States District Court in

Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, Civil

Action No. 4939(N), approves the Board’s proposed plan,

Black voters in Hinds County will be deprived of the oppor-

tunity to elect Representatives of their choice in any of the

five districts.

(d) H.B. 1290 provides that the 10 Representatives for

Hinds County elected by supervisors’ districts shall be

elected in the 1975 legislative elections from the five super-

visors’ districts approved by the decision of the United

States District Court in the Kirksey case ‘‘regardless of

any modifications to said districts brought about by ap-

pellate review.’’ This provision denies plaintiffs their

rights to due process and equal protection of the laws

secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitu-

tion and their rights secured by 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

34. S.B. 2976 provides with regard to Senate District 22

that all five Senators shall be elected by county-wide, at-

large voting. Since Black persons constitute only 39% of

the population and only 34% of the voting age population

of Hinds County (1970 Census), and since racial bloe voting

generally prevails in Hinds County, county-wide, at-large

voting for Senators dilutes and cancels out Black voting

strength in Hinds County and prevents the substantial

Black population (84,064 Black persons) (1970 Census)

from electing Senators of their choice.

35. As a result of substantial out-migration of adult

Blacks from Mississippi since 1970, and the mortality rate

among Blacks, and given that in most counties in Mississippi

disproportionately fewer Blacks are of voting age or regis-

tered to vote than whites, under H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976,

it is extremely unlikely that in 1975 Black candidates for

the Mississippi Legislature can win election in any legisla-

tive district in the state under H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976,

except in District 16 of H.B. 1290 currently occupied by the

state’s only Black legislator, Rep. Robert Clark.

36. The multi-member and floterial districts established

by H.B. 1290 and S.B. 2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.,

are racially discriminatory, submerge black voting strength,

operate to perpetuate this immediate prior history of

discrimination in voting, and invidiously exclude black

persons in Mississippi from free, equal, and effective par-

ticipation in the election of members to the Mississippi

House of Representatives and Mississippi Senate, all in

violation of the rights of plaintiffs and persons similarly

situated secured by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-

ments to the United States Constitution, and by 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1971, 1973, and 1983.

F. Failure to Protect Plaintiffs’ Rights.

37. The Mississippi Legislature has not to date ade-

quately protected plaintiffs’ rights to be free from racial

discrimination and dilution of voting strength inherent in

the legislative districts established by H.B. 1290 and S.B.

2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess.

38. During the 1973 Regular Session of the Mississippi

Legislature, attorneys for the plaintiffs and attorneys for

the defendants, including the defendant Attorney General

A. F. Summer, met as directed by the Court with members

of the Mississippi Legislature. Attorneys for the plaintiffs

urged members of the Mississippi Legislature that multi-

member districts were racially discriminatory, urged them

to enact single-member districts, at least for Hinds, Harri-

son, and Jackson Counties, and demonstrated how this could

be done. In the 1973 Regular Session the Mississippi Legis-

lature passed two bills which partially provided single-

member districts in Hinds, Harrison, and Jackson Counties,

House Bill 446 and Senate Bill 1701, although those bills

also provided for at-large legislative districts in those

counties. However, later in the session, after the deadline

for the introduction of new bills had passed, this legislation

was superceded by Chs. 456 and 457, Miss. Laws, 1973 Reg.

Sess., which failed to provide any single-member districts

in those counties.

39. In its opinion of May 18, 1971, this Court held:

‘¢When, however, a county, within its own borders, elects

four or more representatives, it would be ideal .if it

could be divided into districts, for the election of one

member to the district. * * * This Court now states, there-

fore, that as of January 1, 1972, it expects to appoint a

special master to take testimony and make findings as to

whether the Counties of Hinds, Harrison, and Jackson

may feasibly be divided into districts of substantially

equal numbers in population for the elections of 1975 and

1979 and to file his recommendations with this Court for

appropriate adjudication. As to this, jurisdiction is

retained.’’ 330 F. Supp. 506, 519.

No special master was appointed according to the terms of

this Court’s opinion. On January 3, 1973, plaintiffs filed

with this Court a motion for appointment of a special mas-

ter to implement this holding of the Court. By order of

January 4, 1973, that motion was deferred pending action

by the Mississippi Legislature, which after three sessions

has failed to grant plaintiffs relief. To date no hearing has

been scheduled on that motion.

40. On January 24, 1972, the United States Supreme

Court vacated this Court’s judgment of May 18, 1971, except

insofar as it applied to the 1971 elections, and remanded this

ease back to this Court for further proceedings consistent

with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Supreme Court

noted tat this Court retained jurisdiction regarding single-

member districts in Hinds, Harrison, and Jackson Counties,

and noted that this Court ordered the appointment of a

special master after January 1, 1972 to determine the feasi-

bility of single-member districts for these counties. The

Supreme Court further ordered :

‘‘Such proceedings should go forward to be promptly

concluded, for, as this Court has emphasized, ‘when Dis-

trict Courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans,

single-member districts are preferable to large multi-

member districts as a general matter.’ Connor v. Wil-

liams, 402 U.S. 690, 692 (1971).”’

The mandate of the Supreme Court regarding the appoint-

ment of a special master has not yet been implemented.

41. (a) In its 1975 Regular Session, the Mississippi

Legislature considered but rejected three floor amendments

to H.B. 1290 which would have provided single-member

districts for the Mississippi House of Representatives.

(b) Floor Amendment No. 1, sponsored by Rep. Charles

Mitchell and six other members of the Hinds County delega-

tion in the Mississippi House of Representatives, would

have created 12 single-member districts for Hinds County.

On the vote on the amendment, eight members of the Hinds

County House delegation voted for the amendment, but the

amendment lost by a vote of 22 to 84. A copy of proposed

Amendment No. 1 to H.B. 1290 in the House is attached as

Exhibit 1.

Clark, would have directed the House Committee on Appor-

tionment and Elections and the Senate Committee on

Elections to create single-member districts for the House

and Senate. This amendment lost by a voice vote. A copy

of proposed Amendment No. 2 to H.B. 1290 in the House is

attached as Exhibit 2.

(d) Floor Amendment No. 5, sponsored by Rep. Robert

Donald, would have created 122 single-member districts

statewide for the Mississippi House of Representatives,

and was identical to the Valinsky plan for the House ad-

mitted in evidence at the hearing in this cause on Feb

7, 1975. This amendment lost by a vote of 4 to 106. A copy

of proposed Amendment No. 5 to H.B. 1290 in the House is

attached as Exhibit 3.

; 42. All available 1970 Census data now has been pub-

lished, and with this Census data it is now possible to create

single-member legislative districts with substantial equality

of population among the districts, both statewide and for

Hinds, Harrison, and Jackson Counties.

43. Plaintiffs have filed with the Court two plans provid-

ing for single-member districts statewide for both the Mis-

sissippi House of Representatives and the Mississippi

ae with substantial equality of population among the

(a) The plan drawn by Dr. David Valinsky was ad-

mitted in evidence at this Court’s hearing on February 7,

1975, as Exhibits P-15 (Mississippi House) and P-16 (Mis-

sissippi Senate). Under the Valinsky plan no district has a

variance from the norm greater than 3.09%. The House

districts range from +3.09% to —2.30%, for a total devia-

tion of only 5.39%. The Senate districts range from + 1.66%

to —1.73%, for a total deviation of only 3.39%.

(b) The plan drawn by Mr. Henry J. Kirksey has been

filed with the Court as an exhibit to the Deposition of Mr.

Kirksey taken March 17, 1975, and is attached herein as

Exhibits 4 and 5. Under the Kirksey plan, no district has a

variance from the norm greater than 2.96%. The House

districts range from +2.96% (House District 7) to —2.79%,

for a total deviation of only 5.75%. The Senate districts

range from +2.39% to —2.62%, for a total deviation of

only 5.01%.

sented to the Court for single-member districts substan-

tially equal in population for Hinds County only. These

inelude the Sweeney plans, attached as exhibits to Exhibit

P-3, hearing of February 7, 1975, and a Hinds County

Senate plan based exclusively on 1970 Census Tracts, Ex-

hibit P-11, hearing of February 7, 1975.

44. Plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable

injury by virtue of the foregoing conduct of defendants,

and unless relief is granted will continue to suffer violations

of their rights as secured by the Constitution and laws of

the United States. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at

law to redress the deprivations of their rights, and have

exhausted their administrative and legislative remedies.

Unless this Court grants the requested relief, plaintiffs will

continue to suffer irreparable injury.

G. Relief.

45. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court set

this matter for an expeditious final hearing on the merits

without further delay, and upon such hearing:

(1) Order preliminary and permanent injunctions re-

straining and enjoining defendants, their officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, successors in office, and all

persons in active concert and participation with them from

putting into effect, administering, executing, enforcing, or

otherwise requiring compliance with H.B. 1290 and S.B.

2976, Miss. Laws, 1975 Reg. Sess., as violative of the rights

of plaiatiffs and all persons similarly situated as secured

by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, 1973e, and

1983 ;

(2) Order the defendants to adopt and implement and

put into effect prior to the 1975 state legislative primary

and general elections statewide, single-member legislative

redistricting plans for the Mississippi House of Representa-

tives and the Mississippi Senate;

(3) Enter orders extending the qualifying deadlines for

legislative candidates, staying the 1975 legislative primary

and general elections, and other such orders as may be

necessary to secure the rights of plaintiffs and those simi-

larly situated to statewide, single-member legislative dis-

tricts for the 1975 legislative primary and general elections ;

(4) Grant plaintiffs their taxable costs of this action,

necessary expenses of the litigation, and reasonable attor-

neys’ fees; and

(5) Grant plaintiffs such other relief as may be just and

equitable.

/s/ Frank R. Parker

FRANK R. PARKER

HERMAN WILSON

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law

233 North Farish Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

JOHN L. MAXEY, II

507 East Pear! Street

Juckson, Mississippi 39201

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Exhibits Omitted]

Transcript of Proceedings

United States District Court

Southern District of Mississippi

Jackson Division

May 7, 1975

eo -_ ®

[45] BY MR. PARKER:

We move the admission in evidence, Your Honor, of

House Concurrent Resolution Number 55 in the 1973 regular

session of the Mississippi Legislature. The Legislature in

Mississippi——

BY JUDGE COLEMAN:

Now just one moment. We are going to take judicial

notice of all acts of the Mississippi Legislature, all bills

introduced in the legislature, and all you’ve got to do when

the time comes to argue your case or to file a brief is just

elude to it and direct our attention to it.

[47] BY MR. PARKER:

Exhibit 26 attached was a true and correct copy of the

master computer printout of the 1970 U. S. census showing

the population data through each census enumeration dis-

trict in Mississippi as determined by the U. S. Bureau of

the Census.

BY JUDGE COLEMAN:

[48] We will allow you in our consideration of this case to

refer to any part of the United States Census of 1970 with-

out the necessity of introducing it in evidence.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-6

May 7, 1975

In tHe Unrrep States District Court ror THE

SouTHERN District or MIssIssIPPI

Jackson Drvision

Precey J. ConNER, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

vs. } Civil Action No. 3830

Paut B. JOHNSON, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS. |

DEPOSITION OF HAROLD E. SWEENEY, JR.

[2] Taken by Plaintiff

11:30 A.M., Friday, April 20, 1973

Room 408, Federal Building

Jackson, Mississippi

APPEARANCES:

PRESENT AND REPRESENTING

THE PLAINTIFFS:

Hon. Frank R. Parker, and

Hon. Herman Wilson

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law

233 North Farish Street,

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

and

Hon. John L. Maxey, IIT

Post Office Box 22571

107 South Farish Street,

Jacl Missiesippi

PRESENT AND REPRESENTING

THE DEFENDANTS:

Hon. William A. Allain,

First Assistant Attorney General,

and

Hon. Heber A. Ladner, Jr.

Special Assistant Attorney General

Post Office Box 220

Jackson, Mississippi 39205

COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC:

Mrs. Glenda Ferguson

360 Swan Lake Drive

Jackson, Mississippi 39212

[3] BY MR. LADNER: [Statements made at the start of

taking of the depositions. ]

We object to the taking of the deposition since the order

provided that the plaintiffs must show cause by 9:00 A.M.

in Courtroom Two of this building why the plan could not

be adopted. It is now 9:15. Second, the deposition appears

to be within the scope of the protective order issued by the

managing Judge, which prohibited the taking of depositions

of staff persons of either the plaintiffs or the defendants in

this cause.

Second, there appears to be protection against the taking

of this deposition in that the depositions to be taken were

specified by the managing Judge by name of the deponent.

I was referring to the statements Judge Cox made in open

court. The order itself does not name particular persons,

but I think we are bound by the oral as well as the written

directions of the managing Judge.

BY MR. PARKER:

Do you stipulate to waiving notice of the deposition?

BY MR. LADNER:

Yes.

BY MR. PARKER:

I’ll just respond briefly. We are here on the order for

plaintiffs to show cause filed March 13, 1973 which states:

‘* Accordingly, the plaintiffs and their attorneys of record

are [4] hereby cited to show cause before this Court at

9:00 A.M., April 20, 1973, Court Room No. 2 of Jackson,

Mississippi, if any they can, why said legislative enactments

as passed and adopted should not be approved under the

rule announced by the Supreme Court in Mahon v. How-

We have, in response to that order, flown Dr. David

Valinsky in from New York to testify at this show cause

hearing. We have flown Mr. Harold E. Sweeney, Jr., in

from Carlisle, Pennsylvania to testify at this show cause

hearing this morning. Courtroom No. 2 was locked and no

judges were there, and counsel for defendants have con-

sented to taking the depositions of these witnesses in lieu

of courtroom testimony which was scheduled for this morn-

ing.

HAROLD E. SWEENEY, JR.

after being duly sworn, was examined and testified on his

oath as follows, to-wit:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PARKER:

Q. Would you state your name for the record, please?

A. Harold E. Sweeney, Jr.

Q. What is your address?

A. 555 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsyivania

17013.

Q. What is your business address?

A. Department of Social Science, Shippensburg State

College, [5] Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

. What is your occupation?

I am a political scientist and college teacher.

What is your age?

Thirty-nine.

What is your current position?

Assistant Professor of Political Science.

Where?

At Shippensburg State College.

. Would you describe your educational background,

please?

A. I’m a graduate of Cornell University and the Univer-

sity of Michigan, and I taught as a faculty member at the

University of Michigan, the University of Massachusetts

at Amherst, at Jackson State College, and I’m currently at

Shippensburg State College.

Q. What degrees do you have?

A. A.B. and A.M. and I am completing a doctoral disser-

tation at the present time.

Q. What is your Master’s Degree in?

A. Political Science.

OPOPOoPOroO

Q. Have you ever been to Mississippi before?

A. Yes.

Q. Describe how long you were in Mississippi and what

you did.

[6] A. I lived in Mississippi for approximately three

years. I had made brief visits before that. I was on the

faculty of Political Science at Jackson State College.

Q. For how long?

A. For one year and subsequently worked on a consul-

tant basis for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law.

Q. What was your position at Jackson State College?

A. Assistant Professor of Political Science.

Q. Was that on any particular fellowship or grant?

A. I was a Woodrow Wilson Foundation teaching intern.

Q. What training or background do you have in state

legislative reapportionment and re-districting and reappor-

tionment generally?

A. One of my areas of interest is state and local politics,

and I have a specialized interest in legislative apportion-

ment as well as Congressional apportionment. My experi-

ence in this area has involved the analysis of legislative

reapportionment plans in the State of Mississippi, prepara-

tion of legislative apportionment plans. I have also been

generally concerned with matters of districting at the county

level in Mississippi, and at the Congressional level in the

State of Michigan, and did prepare some years ago a Con-

gressional districting [7] proposal in the State of Michigan.

Q. Have you prepared analyses of deviations from popu-

lation equality for re-districting and reapportionment law-

suits in Mississippi?

A. L have.

Q. Would you testify with regard to the particular coun-

ties in which you have analyzed county supervisor’s dis-

tricts for deviations from population equality?

A. I worked on this matter in connection with Adams

County. The case there is Howard, I believe, versus the

Adams County Board of Supervisors. Also in Issaquena

County, Hall versus Issaquena County Board of Super-

visors. Was your question limited to the county level?

Q. Are those the only ones on a county level?

A. Yes.

Q. How about on the state level?

A. On the state level I analyzed plans which were pre-

pared by the Legislature during the 1971 Session—the vari-

ous bills that were up, and the final plan that was invalidated

by the three-judge District Court in 1971. I prepared

analyses of the plan which the Court adopted—the Court

plan, and I have examined the 1973 Legislative plan.

_Q. Specifically with regard to your analysis of the devia-

tion [8] f-om population equality in Adams County, were

your calculations and statistics accepted by the Court in

that case?

A. I don’t know if I can answer that. As I recall I testi-

fied on that matter, and the upshot of the case was that the

districts were found to be violative of the equi-populous

district rule. I can’t say how the judge arrived at his de-

cision.

Q. What was your testimony in that case?

A. Well, I testified as to the variances, errors in the com-

putation of districts and the like.

Q. So your testimony was that the plan was unconstitu-

tional?

A. In effect, yes.

Q. And what result did the Judge reach in that case?

A. The district plan which the Board had promulgated

was held to be infirm.

Q. What was your testimony in the case of Hall versus

Issaquena County Board of Supervisors?

A. This involved an analysis of the plan which was

adopted by the county Board in either late 1971 or early

1972. I testified as to the variances in the plan as to mathe-

matical errors in the plan, boundary descriptions in the

plan, and I also prepared plans which were submitted—

four plans which were submitted to the Court for [9] con-

sideration in that case.

Q. Was your testimony in that case accepted by the Board

of Supervisors to the extent that they considerably altered

setting up their boundary lines to meet your objections?

A. The Board of Supervisors, after seeing our proposal—

my proposals, revised their plan and in effect adopted for

three out of the five districts the districts which I had

suggested in one of my plans. The other two districts were

different, and the revised supervisor’s plan was the plan

adopted by the Court.

Q. What was your role in the litigation involving the 1971

legislative reapportionment? ;

A. I prepared statistical analyses of the House Pill 515,

which was the legislative act redistricting—reapportioning

the House and Senate, and these figures were submitted in

a brief to the three-judge District Court. And these figures,

at least on the Senate side, were cited by the Court in

hoiding the plan to be invalid—constitutionally infirm.

Q. Are there any other cases in which you have testified

or prepared statistical material?

A. I did work in a very preliminary way but did not

testify in connection with a number of other county district-

ing [10] cases, suggesting ways in which the variances

could be computed or could be shown to be excessive. It

seems to me that I prepared a small amount of material in

connection with Forrest County, as I recall, Oktibbeha

County—and I think that would cover it.

Q. As a result of this experience and as a result of your

reading and training are you familiar with the means by

which mal-apportionment is calculated and measured?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the court decisions and constitu-

tional requirements relating to the requirement that legis-

lative districts must be equal in population?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you examined the House Bill 1389 and Senate

Bill 2452 which is the subject of this lawsuit?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you examined the floterial districts which are

provided ~nder the Legislature’s plan which is currently

before the Court?

A. Yes.

Q. How many floterial districts are in the Senate Plan?

A. One.

Q. How many floterial districts are in the House plan?

A. Seven.

[11] Q. Would you define for the record, please, what we

mean when we say ‘floterial district’?

A. A floterial district is a special type of multi-member

district. It involves two stages in the allocation of repre

sentatives. The initial stage is the award of the apportion-

ment of the number of representatives to what is initially

a multi-member district—conventional multi-member dis-

trict. The second stage involving setting up the floterial

district is to take one or more of the apportioned repre-

sentatives and elect them at large or elect the one represen-

tative at large throughout the whole conglomerate district.

The remaining representatives are then assigned to sub-

districts and they are elected from those sub-districts only.

Q. The records in this case indicate the population devia-

tion in floterial districts has been calculated on the basis of

taking the whole population of the entire district containing

one or more counties, dividing it by the total number of

representatives assigned to that entire district, and then

calculating the deviation from the norm on the basis of the

result achieved by that division. In other words, the devia-

tion has been calculated on the basis of total population of

the entire district. Have you examined this method of

calcuiation to determine [12] whether it accurately meas-

ures the standard of deviation from population equality?

A. I have examined that method applied to floaters, yes.

_Q. And does it accurately measure the standard of devia-

tion from popuiation equality?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Let me illustrate by taking a specific district. How

District 4, which was established as a five-member district.

It consists of three counties—Itawamba, 16,847 ; Lee County,

46,148; and Monroe County, 34,043. So that the population

of the entire conglomerate is 97,038. If you divide—and

this was the apparent procedure which was followed by the

court in 1971—this district and the other districts are the

same in the 1973 legislative plan as under the 1971 court

plan—to divide that figure of 97,038 by five you come up

with a percentage variance of 6.808%+. The reason for

that is that the ideal conventional multi-member district

would be a multiple of five of the norm of 18,171, and this

would he a little over 90,000, so that there’s an excess there

of about 7,000 which drives the variance computed as the

court computes it for conventional multi-member districts

to 6.808% +. When you examine the [13] floterial break-

down the largest county—Lee—is assigned two representa-

tives for a population of 46,148. Itawamba County, with a

population of 16,847, is assigned one representative, and

these are direct representatives. Monroe County, with a

population of more than twice the size of Itawamba County,

at 34,043, is also assigned a single direct representative.

The fifth representative is the at-large floater elected by all

three counties. If you take Itawamba County and examine

it as a—if you were to consider this as a single-member

district—if this had been set up as a single-member district

it would be more than 7.2% under the norm. In other words,

it is over-represented. The floterial arrangement gives a

direct representative to Itawamba County, in other words

leaving aside for the moment the effect of the at-large

floater, Itawamba County with a direct representative at

that point is in the position of a single-member district of

16,847. In other words, more than 7% under the norm. I

think I can give you an exact figure on that—7.286% under

the norm. Now according to the mathematics used by the

court, by assigning part of an additional representative—

by giving the residents of Itawamba some role in the selec-

tion of still another representative-——

[14] Q. That would be the floater representative?

A. The floater representative, yes. You suddenly move

Itawamba to a position where it is under-represented, and

this logically makes no sense. In other words, Itawamba,

by virtue of the direct representative, is going to be over-

represented by 7.286%. Any additional representation will

have the effect of increasing the over-representation, yet

the court concludes—the court’s mathematics suggest that

in fact the result of adding to Itawamba involvement in the

election of the floater is to have the effect of driving the

population variance to the plus side of the norm. This is

not logical; it is not rational—it makes no sense.

Q. What is the measure of over-representation accorded

to Itawamba County by assigning it one whole representa-

tive elected by the county and a fraction of the floater rep-

resentative, which is 16,847 over 97,0381

A. Well, the effect of this is to produce a variance of

21.000% minus.

Q. Does that result in over-representation or under-

representation of Itawamba County?

A. Well, it represents substantial over-representation of

the residents of Itawamba, and I think just looking at the

comparative position of Itawamba residents with Monroe

[15] residents, Monroe County of 34,000 is almost large

enough to elect two representatives in its own right. In fact,

it’s twice the size of Itawamba, yet within the allocation of

direct representatives Itawamba gets as much representa-

tion as Monroe, being assigned one direct representative.

Q. Is Monroe County in that floterial arrangement over-

represented or under-represented ?

A. It is under-represented with a variance of 38.694% +.

In fact it’s rather grievously under-represented given that

Jarge a variance.

Q. In measuring mal-apportionment in floterial districts

why is it necessary to measure the county share of repre-

sentation?

A. Well, I think I can answer this by coming at it this

way. If you use the method which the court has relied on

for non-floterial—let’s say conventional multi-member dis-

tricts—at best you only reach the initial apportionment of

representatives to the area—you don’t reach the secondary

allocation of the assignment of some of the quota of repre-

sentatives to the subdivisions on a direct representative

basis. The only way that you could maintain the variance

you—the court comes up with at the initial stage would be

to create balanced [16] subdistricts to the extent that you

imbalance the subdistrict in terms of their population size—

you create a very strong bias which the floater delegate does

not adequately compensate for, and this will drive the norm

—<drive the variance off in one direction or the other the

greater the imbalance in the size of the subdistricts. Then

as 4 reneral we a Pe greater your variance in either a

positive or negative direction, depending upon the particu-

lar population figures involved. ip ur

Q. When then is the initial caleulation made in that dis-

trict of 6.808%—why is that a defective calculation?

A. It is a defective calculation because it does not reflect

the secondary allocation. It doesn’t reflect the fact that the

multi-member district has been broken up into parts, that

the parts are imbalanced in terms of population. It really

does not take account of that factor at all, and therefore it

produces—well, it can produce an absurd result, and I can

illustrate this by suggesting that if the method applied by

the court were used it would be possible in the extreme case

to assign 120 members of the Mississippi House of Repre-

sentatives to the smallest county in the state—Issaquena

County with a population of 2,737; to assign to the remain-

ing 81 counties of the state having a population in excess

[17] of two million one direct representative, and then to

elect at large throughout the state che 122nd representative.

That would in effect make the state one large floterial dis-

trict, and if the mathematics employed by the court were

applied to that situation you would produce a zero deviation

on the theory that the total state population—the total size

of the district would simply be divided through by 122 and

you would come up with, of course, & perfect norm of 18,171

on the House side. If this were applied to the 1971 legisla-

tive plan which the court found to be unconstitutional—if

this mathematics that the court used for floaters were valid

then that plan could be relative by reducing Hinds County’s

allocation of representatives, which was one short under the

1971 plan—they gave them only 11 representatives—reduc-

ing that figure to 10 and then taking that representative,

electing him at large throughout the state and again calling

the state one big floater district. Or you could do this on a

regional basis. If you apply this to the Tennessee appor-

tionment that the Supreme Court faced in Baker against

Carr, then that plan could be cured by taking one repre-

sentative from Shelby County, electing him at large, and

you would have the perfect legislative plan. Again, if this

mathematics [18] used by the court were applied in that

situation.

Q. Have you calculated the deviations for population

equality in ‘the floterial districts as established by House

Bill 1389 and Senate Bill 24521

A. Yes.

Q. What are the deviations from population equality in

Senate District No. 27?

A. For the Jones subdistrict, 10.708% minus, which is by

the way over—one of the variances cited by the court in

the District Court 1971 opinion—one of the variances

by the court in overturning the legislature’s 1971 plan. The

eourt found that that variance had no rational basis, and

listed that variance among the deficiencies which required

validation of the plan. For the other subdistrict consisting

of four counties—Covington, La

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.