Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS and
JOHN W. ROBINSON III PLAINTIFFS

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00119-WHB-LRA

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
LEE WESTBROOK, in her official
capacity as MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT
CLERK and MADISON COUNTY REGISTRAR,
MADISON COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE, AND MADISON COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs, the Madison County Board of Supervisors, by and through its attorneys, and

John W. Robinson III, pro se, acting pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, respectfully submit this Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Preliminary

Injunction and demonstrate the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a case about relatively simple math and a common-sense solution to a very real

problem. State and Federal Constitutions, statutes, and case law require proportionality in how

citizens are represented at the county government level. Over the past decade, there have been

significant population changes throughout the Jackson, Mississippi metropolitan area. During

that time, Madison County experienced great population growth and significant shifts in the

concentration of residents living in the respective county office districts. Today, as a result of

that growth and change, the citizens of Madison County can no longer take solace in their
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 17

constitutionally guaranteed right to the equal protection of “one-person, one-vote.” The numbers

are not in dispute: the 2010 Census Bureau data show that there is now a population variance of

38.21% among Madison County supervisor districts and 46.96% among Justice Court and

Constable districts,1 figures more than three and four times sufficient for a prima facie showing

of unconstitutionality.2

The Plaintiffs seek a reasonable, sensible, and proportionate remedy to cure this

unconstitutional imbalance. By extending the March 1, 2011 candidate qualifying deadline and

reopening qualifying for a reasonable period of time, the County will be able to adopt a

redistricting plan that satisfies the Constitution and have that plan precleared by the Department

of Justice. This allows Madison County to conduct district elections this year under district

boundary lines that protect the constitutional doctrine of “one-person, one-vote.” Because the

relief requested is reasonable and meets all the requirements for a preliminary injunction, the

Court should grant Plaintiffs‟ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

II. FACTS

The United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”) conducts a census count of the

population of the country every ten years.3 According to federal law, the Census Bureau must

provide census data of a type sufficient for redistricting purposes to state officials no later than

April 1, 2011. See 13 U.S.C. § 141. The Census Bureau delivered the data early to Mississippi

1
Given new information received from the Central Mississippi Planning & Development District
demonstrating prima facie unconstitutional population variances-from-ideal with respect to Justice Court
and Constable elections, the County must include these offices in its request for relief. See Affidavit of
Bruce Reynolds, App. B, attached as Exhibit “A”; see also Miss. Code Ann. § 9-11-2(2) (board of
supervisors required to establish single member election districts for justice court judges and requiring
one justice to be elected by electors of respective district); Miss. Code Ann. § 19-19-2 (constable election-
district run along same boundaries as established for justice court judges under § 9-11-2).
2
See infra part IV.A.
3
See U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

2
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 17

and three other states that have elections in 2011.4

The 2010 Census data became available to Madison County on or about Friday, February

4, 2011, approximately 35 days after January 1, 2011, the commencement of candidate

qualifying for county district elective offices.5 See Affidavit of Bruce Reynolds, ¶ 4, attached as

Exhibit “A.” The County‟s planning agency promptly began analyzing this data to determine

whether the current supervisor boundaries create districts that comply with recognized

constitutional principles of Equal Protection and one-person, one-vote. Id. The results of the

planning agency‟s analysis of the 2010 Census data were presented to the Madison County

Board of Supervisors and the general public during a public hearing held on February 22, 2011.

Id. The planning agency later examined the results of the 2010 Census with respect to the justice

court districts (and the concurrent constable districts). See Aff. of B. Reynolds, ¶ 6, attached as

Ex. “A.” A summary of the planning agency‟s analysis is as follows:

COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICTS

Variance-
Supervisor 2000 2010 Population Ideal
from-
District Census Census Change Population
ideal
1 14,489 17,350 2,861 19,041 -8.88%
2 15,397 19,309 3,912 19,041 1.41%
3 15,480 22,730 7,250 19,041 19.37%
4 14,339 20,361 6,022 19,041 6.93%
5 14,969 15,453 484 19,041 -18.84%
Totals 74,674 95,203 20,529 38.21%

4
“The detailed state data taken in 2010 will be released in spurts during February and March.
Director Robert M. Groves has promised to get the data first to states that have the most pressing needs.
That is expected to be the four states with state legislative elections next year - Virginia, Mississippi, New
Jersey and Louisiana.” From Loading Dock to Downloading, The Washington Post (December 31, 2010)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123004604.html) (last
visited March 5, 2011).
5
Qualifying deadlines for county Supervisor are set pursuant to the Miss. Code Ann. § 25-15-
299(2), discussed infra.

3
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 4 of 17

JUSTICE COURT/CONSTABLE DISTRICTS

Variance-
Supervisor 2000 2010 Population Ideal
from-
District Census Census Change Population
ideal
1 18,556 22,658 4,102 23,801 -4.80%
2 18,909 19,916 1,007 23,801 -16.32%
3 18,574 31,094 12,520 23,801 30.64%
4 18,635 21,535 2,900 23,801 -9.52%
Totals 74,674 95,203 20,529 46.96%

See Aff. of B. Reynolds, Appendices A & B, attached as Ex. “A.” The planning agency‟s report

shows that this large gain in population has created an unconstitutional variance between

supervisor districts of 38.21% and an unconstitutional variance between justice court/constable

districts of 46.96%. Id. The Census Bureau‟s data confirm that there has been a significant

population growth and shift in Madison County – so much so that county district office

boundaries must be redrawn in order to avoid violating the constitutional principle of one-person,

one-vote for the upcoming elections.

Considering the County‟s recent receipt of the 2010 Census data, federal procedural

requirements for redistricting,6 and the need to provide notice and public hearings to allow for

comments from the citizenry, the County was unable to complete the redistricting process prior

to March 1, 2011. See Aff. of B. Reynolds, ¶ 9, attached as Ex. “A.” Therefore, candidates for

county district office positions were forced to declare their candidacy under the old, now-

unconstitutional district lines.

6
According to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(c), better known as Section 5,
Mississippi and its political subdivisions are “covered jurisdictions” and consequently, must submit
election related changes, including redistricting plans, to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance
review prior to their becoming effective. 28 C.F.R. 51.1, 51.4. The Department of Justice has up to sixty
(60) days to perform a preclearance review. See 28 C.F.R. § 51.9.

4
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 5 of 17

III. MISSISSIPPI ELECTION LAW

Article 6, § 170 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provides that “each county shall

be divided into five districts [and] a resident freeholder of each district shall be selected in the

manner prescribed by law.” Mississippi statutory law also provides that “each county shall be

divided into five (5) districts with due regard to equality of population and convenience of

situation for the election of members of the boards of supervisors.” Miss. Code Ann. § 19-3-1.

Separately, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-281 and 23-15-283 provide for each county to be divided

into supervisor districts by the then-incumbent board of supervisors. Any changes in supervisor

district boundaries may not occur within sixty (60) days of any election, Miss. Code Ann. § 23-

15-285, and such changes must be published in a local newspaper for three consecutive weeks

prior to a post-redistricting election, Miss. Code Ann. § 19-3-1.

Similar requirements hold true with respect to justice court judge candidates and

constable candidates. See Miss. Code Ann. § 9-11-2(2) (board of supervisors required to

establish single member election districts for justice court judges and requiring one justice to be

elected by electors of respective district) ; Miss. Code Ann. § 19-19-2 (constable election-district

run along same boundaries as established for justice court judges under § 9-11-2).

A person interested in becoming a candidate for county district office must submit a

Statement of Intent along with the proper fee to the Circuit Clerk (who also serves as the

county‟s elections Registrar) before March 1 (the “Qualifying Deadline”). Miss. Code Ann. §

23-15-299(2) (the “Qualifying Statute”).7 The clerk, in turn, forwards the fee and documentation

to the proper party county executive committee. Id. A candidate must be a qualified elector of

7
In 2003, the Mississippi Legislature amended § 23-15-299 to postpone the Qualifying Deadline
to June 1, 2011, for legislative offices if the 2010 Census information is not received from the Census
Bureau by January 1, 2011. No corresponding change was made to the deadline for county district
offices. See 2003 Miss. Laws Ch. 428 § 1.

5
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 6 of 17

the district in which she seeks election. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 19-3-3, 9-11-2(2), 19-19-2. The

Statement of Intent, consistent with this requirement, requires candidates to state the district in

which they reside. See Exhibit “B” (Miss. Secretary of State, Statement of Intent form).8 The

county executive committee must determine whether the candidate is a qualified elector of their

declared district. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-299(7). Elections for county district offices in

Mississippi are held every four years, with this year‟s party primaries scheduled for August 2,

2011, and the general election slated for November 8, 2011. See Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-191

(primaries held first Tuesday after first Monday), § 23-15-193 (supervisors, justice court judges,

and constables elected at general election).

A visual timeline may assist the Court:

Last Day for

Changes in
Candidate Districts
Qualifying begins 60 days prior to General Election
January 1, 2011 election November 8, 2011

Candidate Primary Elections

Qualifying Ends August 2
March 1

Madison County‟s party executive committees and the Circuit Clerk (alternately, “Local

Defendants”) play important roles in the election of county district officers. Because of the

statutory Qualifying Deadline, however, they have no choice but to certify candidates in districts

drawn with Census data that no longer reflect the true demographics of Madison County.

IV. ARGUMENT

In order to obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff in the Fifth Circuit must show that: 1) there

8
This Statement of Intent is what assigns certain candidates to certain districts, and is where part
of the constitutional rub begins.

6
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 7 of 17

is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) there is a substantial threat that the

plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; 3) the threat of injury to the

plaintiffs outweighs any threat of harm the injunction may do to the defendants; and 4) the

granting of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Mississippi Power & Light Co. v.

United Gas Pipe Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985); Canal Authority of State of Florida v.

Calloway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). The undisputed facts satisfy all four elements of

the Canal Authority test; therefore, the Court should issue a preliminary injunction.

A. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits.

Plaintiffs‟ Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the present county district offices

in Madison County violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [1], ¶ 30. Therefore, the question becomes

whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of this claim.

In the seminal case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964), the United States

Supreme Court recognized that “one-person, one-vote” is a fundamental aspect of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court subsequently extended this concept

to political subdivisions within a state, including county governments. See Avery v. Midland

County, Texas, 390 U.S. 474, 480 (1968) (“If voters residing in oversize districts are denied their

constitutional right to participate in the election of state legislators, precisely the same kind of

deprivation occurs when the members of a city council, school board, or county governing board

are elected from districts of substantially unequal population.”) (emphasis supplied).

In measuring just how much of a variation can exist between districts without violating

the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court has determined that a plan that creates a

population disparity of more than 10% “creates a prima facie case of discrimination and

7
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 8 of 17

therefore must be justified by the State.” Brown v. Thompson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43 (1983); see

also Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418 (1977) (“The maximum population deviations of 16.5%

in the Senate districts and 19.3% in the House districts can hardly be characterized as de

minimis; they substantially exceed the „under-10%‟ deviations the Court has previously

considered to be of prima facie constitutional validity only in the context of legislatively enacted

apportionments.”). The Northern District‟s decision in Tucker v. Burford, 603 F. Supp. 276

(N.D. Miss. 1985), a case in which census data showed a population deviation of 30.96%

between Panola County districts, is illustrative of the ten percent rule:

The official population figures consistently disclosed to both the plaintiffs and to
the Panola County officials that the voting districts had maximum population
deviations exceeding plus/minus 30%. Furthermore, Brown v. Thompson, 462
U.S. at 843, 103 S.Ct. at 2696, 77 L.Ed.2d at 221-22, clearly states that maximum
population deviations exceeding ten percent among voting districts establish a
prima facie case of discrimination.

Tucker, 603 F. Supp. at 278 (emphasis added).

The merits of this case rest upon an indisputable fact – the population variance among

Madison County‟s present supervisor districts is 38.21% and the population variance among

justice court/constable districts is 46.96%. See Aff. of B. Reynolds, Apps. A & B, attached as

Ex. “A.”. Indeed, the State‟s Answer to the Complaint acknowledges this reality. See Answer

and Defenses of State of Mississippi [4] ¶ 18 (“The Attorney General admits only that the 2010

United States Census findings speak for themselves.”). A variance this large does more than

create a prima facie case of unconstitutionality, see Tucker, 603 F. Supp. at 278, it demonstrates

conclusively that Madison County residents, like Plaintiff Robinson, are enduring what is a

constitutional violation of the “one-person, one-vote” doctrine. Therefore, there is more than a

substantial likelihood that the Plaintiffs will prevail on their claim that the present county district

boundaries violate the Equal Protection Clause and the principle of “one-person, one-vote.”

8
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 9 of 17

Although it is not necessary for the Court to go further with regard to an analysis of this

Canal Authority factor, Plaintiffs will show that the Qualifying Statute is unconstitutional as

applied to the particular facts and circumstances of this case. See Compl. [1] at ¶ 31. The State‟s

interests in sovereignty and self-government are important, but must, in this instance, give way

to the fundamental right of every voting-age citizen of Madison County to have a meaningful

ability to participate in the democratic process. By not taking into account the 2010 Census, by

setting a candidate qualifying deadline that does not give the Madison County Board of

Supervisors enough time to redistrict, and by forcing the County to use the same Census Data

that will be at least 15 years old by the next election,9 Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-299(2) is

responsible for the wholesale vote-dilution that will occur if not remedied.

Whether the Qualifying Statute represents good public policy is not the issue (and,

admittedly, beyond the scope of the Court‟s inquiry). However, a statute “may be constitutional

as applied in some situations and unconstitutional as applied in others.” Gibbs v. Blackwell, 354

F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1965); see also Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Porter, 763 So.

2d 845, 850 (Miss. 2000) (holding statute unconstitutional as to certain PERS members and

constitutional as to others).

While the Qualifying Statute has not been an issue for the past three election cycles in

Madison County (owing to the fact that the Census did not coincide with elections held in 1998,

2002, and 2006), it has led to an unconstitutional result in 2011. Under these circumstances the

Court need only declare the candidate qualifying deadline of the Qualifying Statute

unconstitutional as applied here. This is consistent with the general approach that the Supreme

Court has urged other federal courts to take under such circumstances: “try to limit the solution

9
The last Census was taken in 2000. The next regularly scheduled election for county supervisor
is 2015 (four years from the 2011 elections).

9
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 10 of 17

to the problem” and “enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute while leaving

other applications intact.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S.

320, 328-29 (2006). There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will be able to prevail on the

merits of their claim that the March 1 candidate qualifying deadline as provided for in Miss.

Code Ann. § 23-15-299(2) is unconstitutional as applied to the 2011 Madison County district

office elections.

B. There is a substantial threat of imminent, irreparable harm.

Plaintiff Robinson and other citizens of Madison County who live in over-populated

districts will be deprived of their rights to equal representation if the 2011 elections for county

district offices are held using current boundaries. As this court observed in Cook v. Luckett, the

damage “inherent in perpetuating voter dilution” is irreparable. 575 F. Supp. 479, 484 (S.D.

Miss. 1983) (counties preliminarily enjoined from holding primary elections for boards of

supervisors under existing apportionment schemes), rev’d on other grounds, 735 F.2d 912 (5th

Cir. 1984). This is consistent with the fact that it has “repeatedly been recognized by the federal

courts at all levels that violation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm as a matter

of law.” Cohen v. Coahoma County, Mississippi, 805 F. Supp. 398, 406 (N.D. Miss. 1992)

(emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Maxey v. Smith, 823 F. Supp. 1321, 1328 (N.D.

Miss. 1993) (“[C]onstitutional rights violations constitute irreparable harm.”). The denial of

Equal Protection to thousands of Madison County residents cannot be remedied with an award of

monetary damages, another factor that renders the injuries irreparable. See Dillard v. Crenshaw

County, 640 F. Supp. 1347, 1363 (M.D. Ala. 1986) (preliminary injunction granted against

continued use of at-large systems to elect county commissioners and noting that “an injury is

irreparable „if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies‟” (quoting Deerfield Medical

10
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 11 of 17

Center v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981))).

The constitutional deprivation that Madison County‟s voters face is similar to that of

another group of Madison County residents who in 1992 successfully obtained a declaratory

judgment and injunctive relief to remedy the unconstitutional dilution of their votes for another

county office. In Hosford v. Ray, 806 F. Supp. 1297, 1298-99 (S.D. Miss. 1992), a group of

county residents filed suit arguing that allowing citizens who reside within cities having their

own separate municipal school districts to vote for the county superintendant of education

diluted the votes of other county residents. The District Court granted declaratory and injunctive

relief after finding that “the current application of § 37-5-71 to Madison County, Mississippi,

violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 1307-08.

It is clear that the votes of the residents of Madison County‟s Supervisor District 3

(46.83% gain in population) and Justice Court/Constable District 3 (67.41% gain in population)

will be diluted if they are forced to choose in the 2011 elections among candidates running in

districts derived from the 2000 Census. As a matter of law, the damage inherent in perpetuating

this type of voter dilution is irreparable. Therefore, Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof

with regard to this factor.

C. The threatened injury far outweighs the threat of harm to the defendants.

In remedying violations of the one-person, one-vote principle, courts should “apply the

most narrowly tailored remedy possible and shall not „intrude upon state policy any more than

necessary.‟” Garrard v. City of Grenada, Mississippi, No. 3:04-cv-76-B-A, 2005 WL 2175729,

*2 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2005) (quoting Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 41-42 (1982)).

Therefore, it is important to note a fundamental distinction between the present case and the

usual redistricting controversy: Plaintiffs are not requesting that the Court either enjoin the 2011

11
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 12 of 17

elections or order special elections. Therefore, decisions like Fairley v. Forrest County,

Mississippi, 814 F. Supp. 1327 (S.D. Miss. 1993), and Bryant v. Lawrence County, 814 F. Supp.

1346 (S.D. Miss. 1993), in which the District Court denied the respective plaintiffs‟ requests to

order special elections, have no application here. None.

Instead, Plaintiffs simply seek an injunction extending the Qualifying Deadline for a

reasonable amount of time that will allow the County: (1) time to use 2010 Census data to

redistrict to comply with constitutional standards while also complying with Miss. Code Ann. §

23-15-285 (no changes to supervisor districts less than sixty (60) days prior to election); and (2)

time for the Board of Supervisors to give notice of the new districts to the citizens of Madison

County and potential candidates for county district offices, as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 19-

3-1. See Compl. at ¶ 36.

There is ample authority and justification for the Court exercising its equitable powers to

extend the Qualifying Deadline to accommodate redistricting. See Gunn v. Chickasaw County,

Mississippi, No. 1:87-cv-165, 1995 WL 1945397, *2 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 21, 1995) (qualifying

deadline enjoined until June 1, with primary and general election dates remaining as set forth by

State statute); see also Graham v. Thornburgh, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1282-83 (D. Kan. 2002)

(deadline for candidate filings for U.S. House of Representatives extended by District Court);

Hazleton Sch. Dist. v. Valley Educ. Ass’n, 524 A.2d 1083, 1086 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987) (“The

trial court may use its equity powers to extend the deadline for filing nomination petitions [of

School Directors] . . . .”). Indeed, District Judge Mills of the Northern District recently entered

an order indicating the Court‟s clear intent to do so in a pending redistricting matter:

The court sees no reason why the issues in this case can not be resolved, as part of
the normal political process, in time for the 2011 Board of Supervisor elections
this fall. The court stands ready to issue orders extending relevant deadlines to
facilitate this process.

12
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 13 of 17

Grenada County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Grenada County, Mississippi Board

of Supervisors, et al., No. 3:11-cv-028-M-A, Order [9] at p. 2 (N.D. Miss. March 3, 2011)

(emphasis added), attached as Exhibit “C.” A brief extension of the candidate Qualifying

Deadline in order to preserve the principal of one-person, one-vote for the 2011 elections is a

narrowly tailored remedy that only minimally intrudes upon state policy, if at all.

Moreover, Defendants cannot demonstrate any appreciable harm if the Court grants the

requested relief. Since the relief is only seeking that the Local Defendants perform what are

otherwise statutorily mandated duties, Defendants cannot complain of any special burden being

imposed upon them. Merely requiring government officials to carry out statutory duties for an

additional two months or so is a clean and simple remedy for which Defendants cannot credibly

claim any harm. Because the requested relief cures a certain constitutional harm to Madison

County voters and imposes virtually no burden on Defendants, Plaintiffs easily satisfy this

element of the Canal Authority test.

D. Granting the injunction will serve the public interest.

The fourth and last prong of the test for injunctive relief is also easily met here. The

public interest is not served by holding elections using outdated county district office lines that

are prima facie unconstitutional. If the Court takes no action, the citizens of Madison County

residing in over-populated districts will be forced to wait until the next regularly-scheduled

election in 2015 before they can get relief. Of course, by then the “new” district lines will be

based upon population figures already five years old. As the Northern District stated in the case

of Freelance Entertainment, LLC v. Sanders, 280 F. Supp. 2d 533, 547 (N.D. Miss. 2003),

injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest in a case such as this; instead, “it is in the

public‟s interest to protect rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”

13
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 14 of 17

Under the circumstances of this case, the State has no interest or policy that justifies a

delay in reapportionment, trumps the Madison County citizens‟ fundamental constitutional right

to equal representation, or prevents this Court from taking appropriate action to ensure that the

elections at issue are conducted under constitutional county district boundary lines.

V. CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court‟s seminal decision of Reynolds v. Sims has been cited countless times

by District Courts here and throughout the United States. See, e.g., Dyer v. Love, 307 F. Supp.

974, 981 (N.D. Miss. 1969). The language of the Supreme Court‟s 1964 opinion is just as

persuasive now:

The right to vote freely for the candidate of one‟s choice is of the
essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right
strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of
suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of
a citizen‟s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free
exercise of the franchise.

Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555. Unfortunately, litigation to enforce the one-person, one-vote

standard is quite common. In fact, within days of Plaintiffs‟ filing of the present action,

numerous lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs against county governments all over Mississippi

seeking to have federal courts enforce this important constitutional principle.10

10
See Tunica County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Tunica County, Mississippi
Board of Supervisors, et al., 2:11-cv-041 (N.D. Miss.); Panola County, Mississippi Branch of the
NAACP, et al. v. Panola County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 2:11-cv-043 (N.D. Miss.);
Webster County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Webster County, Mississippi Board of
Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-027 (N.D. Miss.); Grenada County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al.
v. Grenada County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-028 (N.D. Miss.); Winston County,
Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Winston County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al.,
1:11-cv-059 (N.D. Miss.); Tallahatchie County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Tallahatchie
County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 2:11-cv-042 (N.D. Miss.); Desoto County, Mississippi
Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Desoto County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 2:11-cv-040
(N.D. Miss); Attala County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Attala County, Mississippi Board
of Supervisors, et al., 1:11-cv-060 (N.D. Miss.); Pike County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Pike
County Board of Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-122 (S.D. Miss.); Amite County, Mississippi Branch of the
NAACP, et al. v. Amite County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-124 (S.D. Miss);

14
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 15 of 17

The present case appears to be one of the few times a local government has joined with

its citizenry in a proactive effort to enforce the one-person, one-vote standard and preserve

regularly scheduled elections. It should be abundantly clear that the current Madison County

district office boundaries are unconstitutional; the citizens of over-populated districts will suffer

irreparable harm if elections go forward using these districts; no harm will come to Defendants

by extending the Qualifying Deadline for a reasonable period of time; and the public interest will

be greatly served. For these reasons, Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted this, the 18th day of March, 2011.

MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

By: /s/ John Dollarhide___

Tommie S. Cardin, MSB # 5863

Mark W. Garriga, MSB # 4762
Malissa Winfield, MSB#100751
John H. Dollarhide, MSB # 103655
BUTLER, SNOW, O‟MARA, STEVENS &
CANNADA, PLLC
1020 Highland Colony Parkway
Post Office Box 6010
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158-6010
(P)(601) 948-5711
(F)(601) 985-4500
tommie.cardin@butlersnow.com
mark.garriga@butlersnow.com
malissa.winfield@butlersnow.com
john.dollarhide@butlersnow.com

Simpson County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Simpson County, Mississippi Board of
Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-123 (S.D. Miss); Hazlehurst, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v.
Copiah County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 3:11-cv-121 (S.D. Miss); Adams County,
Mississippi Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Adams County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 5:11-
cv-030 (S.D. Miss); Parson, et al. v. Wayne County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 4:11-cv-033
(S.D. Miss); Claiborne County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Claiborne County, Mississippi
Board of Supervisors, et al., 5:11-cv-029 (S.D. Miss.); Vicksburg, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v.
Warren County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors, et al., 5:11-cv-028 (S.D. Miss.).

15
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 16 of 17

/s/ Eric T. Hamer

Eric T. Hamer, MSB# 10197
HAMER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
P.O. Box 2185
Ridgeland, MS 39158
(P)(601)573-5748
ehamer@hamerandassociates.com

JOHN W. ROBINSON III, PRO SE

By: /s/ John W. Robison III

John W. Robinson III, MSB#9020
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. ROBINSON III, PLLC
618 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 200
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
(P)(601)853-7600
(F)(601)673-8320
jwr@jwrobinsonlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, John H. Dollarhide, one of the attorneys of record for Madison County Board of

Supervisors, do hereby certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the

Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record,

including:

Jim Hood
agcivillit@ago.state.ms.us

Justin L. Matheny
jmath@ago.state.ms.us

Harold Edward Pizzetta , III

hpizz@ago.state.ms.us

James H. Herring
jhh38@bellsouth.net

Cory T. Wilson
cory@wlglegal.com

16
 Case 3:11-cv-00119-WHB -LRA Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 17 of 17

Bentley E. Conner
connerbentleye@bellsouth.net

SO CERTIFIED, this the 18th day of March, 2011.

/s/ John Dollarhide

John Dollarhide

17
Jackson 6220285v1