## Facts

- After the 2000 census, Mississippi lost one congressional seat, and the state legislature failed to enact a new congressional redistricting plan.
- Voters filed parallel suits: one in Mississippi state chancery court seeking a court-ordered plan for the 2002 elections, and one in federal district court seeking to block use of the existing plan and any non-precleared plan and to obtain either at-large elections or a federal court plan.
- A three-judge federal district court indicated it would step in if it became clear by early January 2002 that no lawful plan would be in place by March 1.
- The Mississippi state chancery court adopted a congressional plan after the state supreme court confirmed the chancery court’s jurisdiction.
- Because Mississippi was covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the state-court plan was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for preclearance; DOJ requested additional information, delaying the start of the statutory review period until receipt.
- When DOJ had not precleared the state-court plan by the federal court’s deadline, the federal district court enjoined use of the state-court plan and ordered its own single-member-district plan for the 2002 elections (and until replacement by a precleared, constitutional state plan).
- The district court also found, in the alternative, that the state-court plan was unconstitutional; the State did not appeal.
- DOJ later declined to complete preclearance review because the injunction made the state-court plan incapable of administration.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court congressional redistricting plan in a § 5-covered jurisdiction may be used for an upcoming election without timely § 5 preclearance, and whether a federal court may enjoin its use for lack of preclearance.
2. Whether, when a state loses a seat and lacks a timely valid plan, a federal court should order at-large elections under 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) (and state law) or instead implement a single-member-district plan consistent with 2 U.S.C. § 2c.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The Court unanimously held that the district court properly enjoined use of the state-court plan because it lacked timely § 5 preclearance.
- A majority upheld the district court’s remedial choice to implement a single-member-district federal plan rather than order at-large elections; the Justices disagreed on the precise statutory relationship between 2 U.S.C. §§ 2a(c) and 2c.
- A plurality concluded § 2a(c)’s at-large mechanism is limited by, and functionally subordinate to, § 2c’s single-member-district requirement except in circumstances where districts cannot be timely established.
- A separate concurrence agreed in the judgment on the ground that § 2c impliedly repealed § 2a(c) for states entitled to more than one Representative.
- Another concurrence agreed in the judgment while rejecting both the “subordinate” and “implied repeal” rationales, concluding the statutes can coexist and the district court’s remedy was lawful on the facts.

## Legal Principles

- A congressional redistricting plan adopted by a state court in a jurisdiction covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a change in voting practice that requires § 5 preclearance before implementation.
- Without timely § 5 preclearance, a covered jurisdiction may not administer elections under the new plan; a federal court may enjoin use of a non-precleared plan.
- When a state lacks a timely valid congressional plan, a federal court may impose an interim redistricting plan that complies with the Constitution and applicable federal statutes.
- Federal election law reflects a strong preference for single-member congressional districts in states entitled to more than one Representative; at-large elections under § 2a(c) are not the ordinary remedy where timely districting is feasible.
- State statutes authorizing at-large congressional elections cannot control where federal statutory requirements governing congressional district elections apply.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a federal injunction blocking a non-precleared, state-court congressional map in a § 5-covered state and approved the federal court’s use of a single-member interim districting plan, rejecting at-large elections as the default remedy when lawful districting can be implemented in time.


Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003)