Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW Delbert Hosemann, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State
of Mississippi, and ex-officio member ofthe State Board of Election Commissioners, and moves this
Court to dismiss the Complaint, and for cause thereof would show the following:
BACKGROUND
On March 17 , 201l, the instant lawsuit was filed by the Mississippi Conference of the
National Association forthe Advancement of Colored People, Thomas Plunkett, Rod Woullard, and
Hollis Watkins. The Plaintiffs allege that the existing legislative districts, which were drafted and
United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, Section 5 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C.
$ 1973 (c), Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 U.S.C. $ 1973 and Art. l2 $ 254, Miss.
Const. (1890) and Art. 3 $ 14, Miss. Const. (1890). The plaintiffs seek a Declaratory Judgment that
the defendants violated plaintiffs' rights and that the existing redistricting plans for the Mississippi
also request that this Court issue a temporary restraining order until a three judge panel can be
convened. Because plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for adjudication the Court must grant the instant
A district court may dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to allege facts to support federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(bX I ); Williamson v. Tucker ,645 F .2d 404,412-13 (5'h
Cir.), cert. denied 454 U.S. 897 (1981). A court may base its decision on the complaint alone, the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented
by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts. Ynclan v. Dept. of the Air Force,
617 F.3d 336 (5'h Cir. 2010). Lopezwas a redistricting case involving the City of Houston, Texas.
The Court found that issues presented by appellants (plaintiffs) were not ripe for judicial review.
Thus, it is clear that if a redistricting lawsuit is not ripe for judicial review, it must be dismissed for
Secretary Hoseman does not dispute that the current legislative districts, drafted and
implemented in2002, are malapportioned based on 20 I 0 census data. However, this fact alone does
not permit this Court nor a three judge panel, to take away the responsibility of drawing legislative
districts from the Mississippi Legislature, which is constitutionally mandated to draw lines. In fact
According to the clear language ofthis constitutional provision, plaintiffs' claims are not ripe
and will not be ripe until the Mississippi Legislature adjourns Sine Die concluding the 2012
Legislative session, and all requirements of Section254 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 are
exhausted.
This section continues, "Should the legislature adjourn, without apportioning itself as
required hereby, the governor by proclamation shall reconvene the legislature within thirty (30) days
in special apportionment session which shall not exceed thirty (30) consecutive days." Additionally,
should the Legislature be unable to reach agreement on reapportionment during this time, a special
commission consisting of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Secretary of
State, Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall be
convened and shall, within 180 days, reapportion the Legislature. Thus, before the Court can step
in and start drawing legislative districts, it should allow Article 13, Section 254 of the Mississippi
Case 3:11-cv-00159-CWR -FKB Document 41 Filed 04/01/11 Page 4 of 9
Constitution to take its course. As the Court stated in Watkins v. Mabus,771 F. Supp. 789 (S.D.
Miss. 1991), "reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the state through its
legislature and other body, rather than of a federal court," McDaniel v. Sanchez,452U.S. 130, 138,
101 S. Ct.2254,68 L. E., 724 (1981). The Legislature bears first responsibility for reapportioning
itself and has not yet been given time to exact a plan of reapportionment. Wise v. Lipscomp, 437
In Watkins vs Mabus this Court made special mention of the fact that under Art. 13, Section
254, of the Mississippi Constitution the l99l Mississippi Legislature was not required to reapportion
itself until 1992. However, the 1991 Legislature chose not to wait until 1992to reapportion itself,
but did so in 1991, thus making the plaintiffs' claims ripe for adjudication. That is not the case here.
As of today's date, the Mississippi Legislature has not approved a redistricting plan. Pursuant to
Section 254 of the Mississippi Constitution, the Legislature is not required to act this year. It has
until the conclusion of the 2012Legislative session to act. Only if the Legislature fails to actin2012
are the existing district lines unconstitutional. Until this occurs, this matter is not ripe and this Court
has no subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof in
In Watkins v. Mabus, this Court was faced with deciding whether to allow legislative
elections to proceed under malapportioned legislative districts. Both the 1982 Mississippi
Legislative Plan and the plan adopted by the l99l Mississippi Legislature were challenged as being
unconstitutionally malapportioned.
Case 3:11-cv-00159-CWR -FKB Document 41 Filed 04/01/11 Page 5 of 9
The Court was faced with two plans, one plan (the 1982 plan) had been pre-cleared by the
United States Attorney General and a second plan (the l99l plan) had not been pre-cleared. The
1982 plan based on the 1990 census date was malapportioned. The Court expressed concern that
if it adopted a plan by one or more of the parties, that plan would have to be pre-cleared. Thus, the
Court was faced with only one plan that was pre-cleared, even though it was malapportioned. The
Court stated:
The plaintiffs in Watkins objected to the use of the 1982 plan on the ground that it violated
the principle of one-person, one-vote. The Court, in rejecting this argument, stated "conducting
elections using existing malapportioned districts will further a number of legitimate state policies.
It will allow on-time elections, . . . and permit the Legislature or this Court to resolve the problem
of redistricting in Mississippi with a full opportunity for hearings and input from the public."
It is clear from the decision in Watkins that Article 13, Section 254 of the Constitution should
be allowed to occur and that allowing elections under the existing plan, which has been pre-cleared,
Additionally, it is not a violation of the principle of "one person one vote" to utilize the
Case 3:11-cv-00159-CWR -FKB Document 41 Filed 04/01/11 Page 6 of 9
existing plan for interim relief. The Court in Watkins, cited Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533,lzL.
Ed2d 506, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964) for the proposition that courts faced with an illegal apportionment
on the eve of an election, frdy adopt interim plans that would not pass constitutional or statutory
This Court has ruled similarly in cases involving elections on a local level. In Bryant v.
Lawrence Countv. Mississippi, Sl4 F. Supp. 1346 (S.D. Miss. 1993) the Lawrence County
Supervisors attempted to redistrict itself in time for l99l supervisor's elections just after 1990
census data became available. However, supervisors were unable to gain pre-clearance by the
Department of Justice prior to the 1991 elections. Voters sued Lawrence County on "one person,
one vote" and other grounds. Voters asked the Court to require a special election with new district
The Court ultimately held that there was no actionable "one person, one vote" claim.
Because 1) the existing plan has been pre-cleared by the Justice Department,2) the census
data only recently became available, 3) the Mississippi Legislature has not had sufficient time to
Case 3:11-cv-00159-CWR -FKB Document 41 Filed 04/01/11 Page 7 of 9
redistrict itself, and 4) Section 254 gives the Legislature until the close of the 2012 Legislative
session to timely complete the task of redistricting. "One person, one vote" is not violated.
Therefore, as interim relief, the existing plan may be used for this yeat's Legislative elections.
CONCLUSION
The Mississippi Legislature is the body responsible for drawing Mississippi's legislative
districts. They have until the conclusion of the 2012 Legislative session to accomplish this task.
Unless and until the Legislature has proven that they cannot or will not carry out its constitutional
duty, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to act. The existing plan, though malapportioned,
has been pre-cleared. To conduct 201I Legislative races under the existing plan will fuither a
number of legitimate state policies, including allowing the Legislature to carry out its constitutional
responsibility.
The Court should dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert L. Gibbs, hereby certiff that on April I ,2011,I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the
following:
0t 16251 1
Case 3:11-cv-00159-CWR -FKB Document 41 Filed 04/01/11 Page 9 of 9