- How old am I:
- I am 66
Log In to access Job Alerts.
Henry J. Sections, andand that this Court had jurisdiction of their claims pursuant to 28 U. Sections, andand 42 U. Sections d and j f.
More specifically, the plaintiffs challenged the Hinds County redistricting plan on the grounds that the defendants were under a duty to submit the plan to the Attorney General of the United States under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of42 U. Pursuant to the plaintiffs' request, a Three-Judge Court was deated on August 5,as required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of On July 6,the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to dismiss Count I, primarily to avoid the duplication brought about by the filing of a complaint by the United States seeking to enforce Section 5 objections to the redistricting plan in the case of United States v.
Order dated July 31, Accordingly, on December 26,this Court entered an Order, without objection by counsel representing any of the parties herein, which allowed the plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to add additional parties as noted hereinabove; specifically found that there was in fact a good faith effort to redistrict Hinds County in pursuant to the Order of this Court in Smith v.
The defendant Board of Supervisors were therefore directed to file within six months of the date of that Order a new redistricting plan in strict accord with the requirements of the one-man, one-vote rule and the plaintiffs were given thirty days thereafter in which to file objections thereto. This Court's Order further required that " d said plan shall be formulated without regard to the race, creed, sex or national origin of any citizen of Hinds County, Mississippi.
The plaintiffs further contended that the proposed districts under the redistricting plan disregarded natural and geographic boundary lines and political subdivision lines, lacked compactness, preserved incumbents in their respective districts, unnecessarily altered existing precincts, and was based on discriminatory criteria unrelated to proper redistricting and constitutional guarantees. Pursuant to that Order, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants employed Comprehensive Planners, Inc. The defendants contend that the plan submitted by the plaintiffs is wholly impractical and unacceptable in that it is a racially motivated gerrymander and furthermore, that it creates two relatively small districts wholly within the City of Jackson without any county road or bridge mileage included and without any effort to utilize land areas or rural and urban populations.
Kirksey, Dr. James W. Loewen, Dr. Gordon G. Henderson, and Johnny Ross, and presenting approximately seventy documents for introduction into evidence. The defendants called one witness, Mr. Hoyt T. Holland, Jr. This Court has subsequently carefully considered the transcript of this proceeding, the exhibits introduced into evidence, and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and accompanying memoranda of law, presented by the parties in this case in support of their respective positions.
The remainder of the county is much less developed and populated, thus resulting in an uneven population distribution. As noted by the Fifth Circuit in the case of Moore v. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 37, In Moore, supra, close to one-half of the county's blacks, one-fourth of the entire population, were concentrated in a five square mile quadrant of the county seat of the town of Greenwood.
Unlike the situation in Moore, however, the majority of the residents of Hinds County are white. According to the United States census, Hinds County hasresidents, of whom Both plans clearly satisfy the one-man, one-vote standard established by Reynolds v.
Search for and apply to government jobs with one easy profile.
Sims, U. It is thus encumbent upon this Court to examine each plan to determine its constitutional validity, and thereafter order the implementation of one of the submitted plans, or if warranted, direct the preparation of an additional plan. Comprehensive Planners is a corporation organized on April 2, at West Point, Mississippi, to provide services to public bodies in the field of political redistricting and reapportionment.
Its professional staff includes specialists in urban and regional planning, urban renewal, urban de, economic and demographic research, property re-evaluation, and political redistricting and apportionment.
Hoyt Holland, Jr. Holland has testified before this Court in several cases concerning proposed redistricting plans, including Howard v. Roberts, Civil Action No. J N this Court having this date ordered the preparation of a new plan by the Smith County Board of Supervisorsand the Court considers him an expert in the field of special planning in political redistricting.
See Exhibit D Based upon this examination, C. This would also prevent any disturbance of existing district boundaries, voting precincts and voting places in the rural areas of the county.
Holland testimony Trs. Holland testified that only seventeen election districts within the urban area of Jackson would be disturbed by the proposed Board plan, there being no proposed changes in election districts outside the City of Jackson, and two of these changes would involve only land area and not people. Additionally, he noted that under the proposed plan four election districts would be shifted from one supervisors' district to another without any change in boundary, and approximately nine other districts required minor changes in their boundaries occasioned by the expansion of the city limits of Jackson in August of He further stated that it was his understanding from a meeting with the Board of Supervisors that there had been no substantial changes in the rural areas in any particular district between and and that the road mileage, bridge and maintenance responsibility area were satisfactory to all members of the Board.
Holland noted that in attempting to equalize the responsibilities of the supervisors in regards to road and bridge maintenance, it was necessary to consider not only the road mileage and the of bridges, but also the types of ro and bridges contained within a particular district.
He further testified that the C. Exhibit P, Exhibit P, 6.
Although the plaintiffs have presented for the Court's consideration a statistical comparison of the road mileage in each district under the pre plan, the plan, and the plan, and a comparison of the land area in square miles between the plan and the plan, this Court does not find the disparities presented to be of any great ificance. Exhibit P, 6; Exhibit P, 6. They result from the necessary consideration of population equalization as the primary goal in drawing the Board plan.
Men seeking sex on an intergenerational gay internet website: an exploratory study
Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence that the equalization of road mileage and land area has always been a legitimate concern of the Board of Supervisors in attempting to equalize responsibilities among the five districts. This Court concurs with the defendants' interpretation of the entry in Minute Book 88, Exhibit Pconcerning possible conversion to a county-unit system in Hinds County, that although the County Engineer would be given certain general duties in regards to the maintenance of ro and bridges in all districts, the individual members of the Board would retain supervision with respect to their particular district.
This result is accomplished under the Board plan with a minimal disturbance or change of existing election districts and voting places. As noted by Holland in his testimony before this Court, it is absolutely impossible to draw five districts without splitting the urban area of Jackson into five parts and still realize the other desirable planning objectives of equalization of road and bridge maintenance responsibilities and the substantial equalization of areas between the districts.
Certainly, as the plaintiffs suggest and as has been true with other plans considered by this Court, the utilization of the long corridors into an urban area does create rather unusual looking supervisors' districts. In this case, as was true in the Adams County case, the plaintiffs have quite appropriately referred to proposed District Three as a "turkey" and proposed District Four as a "baby elephant". This Court has carefully examined these lines, however, and finds that they do follow, so far as possible, natural boundaries such as rivers, highways, railways, and other landmarks traditionally used to deate district boundaries.
Exhibit P, s In redistricting a county with the configuration of Hinds, the vast majority of its population situated in the northeastern corner of the county in the urban area of Jackson, it was absolutely necessary and proper, in this Court's opinion, to have corridors running into Jackson from each rural land mass in order to achieve a division of population and approximate equalization of road mileage and land area.
In this regard, we concur with the observation of the Court in Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, suprain discussing the Adult seeking sex Kirksey of the boundary lines presented by the Court approved plan therein, the Court noting: "the lines of all districts are well within the bounds of reasonable discretion and do not offend good planning.
The criticism that some districts are not compact because of relatively lengthy perimeters is without factual or logical support, considering the physical conditions that prevail.
Save citation to file
The plan necessarily divides the people of the City of Jackson, both black and white, among the five districts and this was necessary, in this Court's opinion, in order to achieve equalization of population with approximate equalization of road mileage and land area. This Court finds no substantial evidence of fragmentation of any particular area within the county containing a majority of either the black or white population other than that which naturally occurred in attempting to equalize population while considering other legitimate planning objectives.
Holland testified that his first compilation of any racial data concerning the plan was in response to the Order of this Court in January,subsequent to the preparation and submission of the plan the preceding year. In computing the population of Hinds County for the purpose of devising the redistricting plan, C. Holland testified that prior to the availability of the census data the only way C. This witness was examined extensively concerning the utilization of this procedure in the preparation of the plan, and the Court is convinced that this procedure was the most efficient means possible of computing accurate total population percentages at that particular time.
The record is devoid of any evidence whatsoever that the racial data compiled in order to compute the population totals was used in any manner whatsoever by C. Based on the findings hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the plan prepared by C. This Court further finds that this was accomplished without regard to race or political affiliation of the residents of the county, race being wholly disregarded as a factor in fashioning the district lines for both the plan and the plan. As revealed by the above figures, prior to the redistricting inblacks in Hinds County comprised the majority in two supervisors' districts, Districts Two 2 and Three 3.
The racial composition of supervisors' districts under the defendants' proposed redistricting plan is as follows:.
The above statistical breakdown of racial distribution of the population in Hinds County reveals that under the redistricting plan prepared by C. The Court considers this quite a ificant factor in a county in which blacks comprise less than forty per cent of the total population of the county. Loewen, Associate Professor of Sociology at Tougaloo, Mississippi, with a specialization in urban sociology, race relations, political science, and Mississippi history see Exhibit Ptestified that due to the heavier out-migration of adult blacks from Hinds County, the percentage of blacks in the black voting age population of the county is disproportionately less than the percentage of whites in the white voting age population.
Utilizing a statistical analysis of the estimated voting age population V. Loewen's testimony revealed that 84, blacks living in Hinds County, 37, Of thewhites living in Hinds County, 41, Thus, pursuant to Dr. Loewen's calculations, the percentage of blacks in the total voting age population of Hinds County However, the percentage of whites in the total voting age population of Hinds County Loewen testimony; Exhibit P Based on these computations, the estimated voting age population of each of the defendants' proposed districts, by race, is as follows:.
Loewen noted on cross-examination that in computing the above statistics, he was in fact assuming that the He further noted that because of this the percentage by districts would be only estimates but "they were very unlikely to be off more than, I would say, one or maybe two percentage points. Maybe one and a half" Loewen testimony Trs. An upward variance of several percentage points, however, would place the percentage of blacks in the voting age population in Districts Two and Five at approximately fifty per cent of the total V.
Loewen's conclusion that blacks do not comprise a majority of the voting age population in any district is confirmed to some extent Adult seeking sex Kirksey the calculations of Dr. Gordon Henderson, Director of the Computer Center and Professor of Political Science at Tougaloo College, who the Court recognized as an expert in the field of political science, and more specifically political behavior and political attitudes, but not in the field of county redistricting.
Exhibit P Henderson testimony Trs. Exhibits P,