Connor v. Finch | Cases | Westlaw

Continuing our difficult journey toward a valid reapportionment of the Mississippi Legislature, we now apportion the State of Mississippi into 122 single member districts for the election of members of the State House of Representatives. Our partial decree of August 24, 1976 apportioning the State Senate, including its findings of fact and conclusions of law, is incorporated in and made a part of this decree.

In constructing a system of single member legislative districts, this Court is compelled to ignore the requirements of the Mississippi Constitution that each County shall have one Representative. We are compelled to abandon two 159 year old state policies: (1) multi-member legislative districts and (2) never fracturing county boundaries in the composition of legislative districts. In short, by the erection of single member legislative districts we have revolutionized Mississippi's system of legislative elections. On the other hand, we have striven to preserve county identity as far as reasonably possible, which Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 holds to be a legitimate objective. The spirit, if not the letter, of the policy behind the preservation of county boundaries and the integrity of counties as the basic unit of state government has been largely preserved. The basic fabric of Mississippi government has not been materially harmed. This has caused, or rendered unavoidable, the population variations appearing between and among the respective legislative districts. Once the voting public becomes familiar with the new system (which will take time) the best interests of the State will be promoted by single member districts. Using the foundation here established for the first time, when the results of the 1980 census are known, legislative districts may be revised with less population variances and with a negligible impact on the legislative electoral process.

Mississippi has not been allowed to elect a legislature under rules of its own making since 1963. Three quadrennial legislative elections have been held under reapportionments constructed by this Court; yet, for various reasons, none of the Court-ordered plans has ever reached a decision on the merits in the Supreme Court. The most recent effort of the Legislature to reapportion itself foundered upon objections from *1091 the Attorney General of the United States. As the Supreme Court indicated in its opinion of May 19, 1976, the time has come to put an end to this litigation. Prior experience teaches that nothing short of the course we have adopted has any real hope of ending it.

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 at 577, 84 S.Ct. 1362 at 1390, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, the Supreme Court said that “the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and a good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable.”

Consistently with the considerations advanced in our opinion of August 24, 1976, this Court has done all it can do in the way of an honest, good faith effort.

In Reynolds v. Sims, supra, the Supreme Court also said:

“A State may legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions, insofar as possible, and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory in designing a legislative apportionment scheme. Valid considerations may underlie such aims. Indiscriminate districting, without any regard for political subdivision or natural or historical boundary lines, may be little more than an open invitation to partisan gerrymandering.” Mahan v. Howell confirmed this principle.

In the formulation of our Court-ordered plan, literally hundreds of boundary possibilities have been considered in an effort to achieve population norms but there has been no gerrymandering.

It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that 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 follows, to-wit: