IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60614

Summary Calendar

HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

 Plaintiff

v.

KAREN LADNER RUHR, in her official capacity as Hancock County Circuit 

Clerk and Hancock County Registrar; ET AL,

 Defendants

JIM HOOD, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of 

Mississippi.

 Intervenor Defendant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAZLEHURST, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; NANETTE

THURMOND-SMITH,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

PAMELA JEFFERSON; ROBERT CATCHINGS,

 Movants - Appellants

v.

COPIAH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; COPIAH 

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE; COPIAH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; COPIAH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; EDNA STEVENS, in her official capacity as 

Circuit Clerk,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVEREND FRANK LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated; PIKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

GREGORY PARTMAN,

 Movant - Appellant

v.

PIKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; PIKE COUNTY, 

MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; PIKE

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; 

ROGER GRAVES, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk; PIKE COUNTY,

MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; L. J. CAMPER, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

LASTER SMITH,

 Movant - Appellant

2

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

v.

SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; SIMPSON 

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE; SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI 

REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; SIMPSON COUNTY,

MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; CINDY 

JENSEN, in her official capacity as Circuit Clerk,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on

Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly Situated; GLENN WILSON, on 

Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly Situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

HUGH MCGEE,

 Movant - Appellant

v.

AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AMITE 

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE;

AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; 

AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS; SHARON WALSH, in Her Official Capacity as Circuit 

Clerk,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

3

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; LEAH PARSON, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

JIMMIE GREEN; DAVID JONES,

 Movants - Appellants

v.

WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WAYNE 

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE; WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; ROSE BINGHAM, in her official capacity as 

Circuit Clerk,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on behalf of itself and

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellant

FANNIE TONTH,

 Movant - Appellant

v.

WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; 

WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

4

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

COMMITTEE; WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; SHELLY ASHLEY-PALMERTREE, in his 

official capacity as Circuit Clerk,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JACQUELINE 

MARSAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

BRENDA PROBY,

 Movant - Appellant

v.

ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; ADAMS 

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE; ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; EDWARD WALKER, in his official capacity 

as Circuit Clerk,

 Defendants - Appellees

JIM HOOD,

 Intervenor Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

5

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

USDC Nos. 1:10-CV-564, 3:11-CV-121, 3:11-CV-122, 3:11-CV-123, 

3:11-CV-124, 4:11-CV-33, 5:11-CV-28, 5:11-CV-30

Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

This is the second appeal challenging the dismissal of complaints 

asserting Fourteenth Amendment “one person, one vote” claims against 

certain Mississippi officials. The underlying complaints arose from the 2011

Board of Supervisors elections in several Mississippi counties. The district 

court initially dismissed the complaints on the grounds of lack of standing and 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and we vacated the 

orders dismissing the complaints and remanded for consideration of whether 

the controversy was moot.1 The district court then dismissed the complaints 

on the ground of mootness. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the orders.

I.

Nine Mississippi counties were involved in the initial appeal: Adams, 

Amite, Claiborne, Copiah, Pike, Simpson, Warren, Wayne, and Tallahatchie 

County. All but Tallahatchie County are involved in the instant appeal.2 Each 

county in Mississippi maintains five supervisor voting districts, with 

boundaries established by each county’s Board of Supervisors. See 

Miss. Const., art. 6, § 170; Miss. Code ann. §§ 19-3-1, 23-15-281 & -283. The 

boundaries utilized in the 2011 elections in each county at issue here were 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Ruhr, 487 Fed. App’x 189 (5th Cir. 2012).

2 The Tallahatchie County case was stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. See 

Consolidation Order in Winston Cnty. NAACP v. Winston Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, ND Civil 

Action 1:11cv59-MPM-JMV (Nov. 20, 2013).

6

 

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

adopted by their respective Boards following the 2000 decennial census. In the 

middle of the qualification period for candidates in the 2011 election, in early 

February 2011, the United States Census Bureau released the 2010 

Mississippi county population data. The counties began the process of 

redrawing voting district lines to correct any malapportionment, but it became

apparent that there would not be sufficient time to complete the redistricting 

process and obtain Department of Justice preclearance in time for the primary 

elections. Candidate qualifying closed on March 1, 2011, party elections were 

held in August 2011, and general elections were held in November 2011.

In December 2010, the Hancock County Board of Supervisors (“Hancock 

County”) filed a complaint asserting an equal population vote dilution claim 

and seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Republican 

Party Executive Committee, the Democratic Party Executive Committee, and 

Karen Ruhr, the Circuit Clerk and Registrar. In late February 2011, local 

branches of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

(“NAACP”) and African-American voters brought “one person, one vote” 

actions in several counties. They requested that the district court enjoin the 

statutorily mandated qualifying deadline and require the respective Boards to 

revise all of the targeted counties’ voting districts on a fast-track timetable 

prior to the primary elections. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed 

motions to intervene in the cases and motions to consolidate the cases in early 

March 2011, and these motions were granted. 

As discussed in detail in our prior opinion, Hancock County Board of 

Supervisors v. Ruhr, the district court eventually dismissed the complaints for 

lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 

alternatively for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted 

under Rule 12(b)(6). 487 Fed. App’x 189 (5th Cir. 2012). While we agreed that 

the plaintiffs did have standing, we vacated the district court orders dismissing 

7

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

the complaints and remanded for consideration of mootness. Id. at 201. The 

district court then considered whether the controversy was moot and, finding 

that it was, dismissed the case. Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Ruhr, 

2013 WL 4483376 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2013). The plaintiffs timely appealed.

II.

As a general rule, “[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the 

commencement of litigation (standing) must continue through its existence

(mootness).” La. Envt’l Action Network v. City of Baton Rouge, 677 F.3d 737, 

744 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Generally, a request for an injunction is 

moot upon the happening of the event sought to be enjoined. Wilson v. 

Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2012). “If a case has been rendered moot, 

a federal court has no constitutional authority to resolve the issues that it 

presents.” La. Envt’l Action Network, 677 F.3d at 744 (citation omitted). We 

review questions of federal jurisdiction de novo, including arguments that a 

case or controversy has become moot. Id. When the district court does not 

resolve any disputed facts, we consider the allegations in the complaint as true. 

Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 566 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Appellants, however, argue that the controversy is live and falls within 

the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness 

doctrine. Under this exception, a party may save an otherwise moot claim by 

showing that: “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully 

litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable 

expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same 

action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford. 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 349

(1975). The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving both elements. Ill. State Bd. 

of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 187-88, 99 S. Ct. 983, 992

(1979). Under the “capable of repetition” prong, the plaintiffs “must show 

either a ‘demonstrated probability’ or a ‘reasonable expectation,’” Oliver v. 

8

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002), that they will be subject to the same 

unlawful governmental action again, Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 147, 

96 S. Ct. at 348. A “mere physical or theoretical possibility” is not sufficient to 

satisfy this prong. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183-

84 (1982). We have commented that “a court will only invalidate an election 

in exceptional circumstances, usually when there has been an egregious 

defiance of the Voting Rights Act.” Wilson, 667 F.3d at 59 (citation omitted). 

When this case was first before us, we found that “[b]ased on the record 

before us . . . we are unable to determine whether this controversy is live” 

because we “lack[ed] access to factual findings” and “the district court . . . had 

no opportunity to consider this case in its post-election posture.” Ruhr, 

487 Fed. App’x at 200. The district court has since considered mootness on 

remand and we are able to reach this issue on appeal. In the district court, 

appellants’ counsel stated that the remedy they were seeking was that they 

“want the current districts enjoined, election not to be held under the existing 

benchmark districts because they are grossly malapportioned.” Appellants 

argued that, had the counties started the redistricting process earlier, there 

would have been plenty of time between the census and the election to complete 

it. Finally, Appellants contended that the same situation giving rise to this 

action will occur every twenty years, and they will not have time to fully 

litigate the issue before the election that will occur in 2031, and thus, the case 

is capable of repetition but will evade review.

As the district court aptly noted, the elections at issue occurred over two

years ago, and appellants have presented no evidence that the Mississippi 

election officials deliberately defied or in the future intend to violate the Voting 

Rights Act. Instead, the evidence shows that despite time constraints imposed 

by Mississippi statutes, Appellees attempted to comply with their redistricting 

responsibilities. Moreover, it is apparent that the Department of Justice 

9

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

preclearance was the primary impediment to the counties’ ability to redistrict 

in time for the 2011 elections, and as the district court aptly noted, this 

impediment has been removed after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby 

Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, ___ U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (finding Section 4(b) 

of the Voting Rights Act, the coverage formula, unconstitutional and causing 

no jurisdiction to be subject to Section 5 preclearance until Congress enacts a 

new coverage formula). Appellants have only shown that the Appellees may 

have the opportunity to act in the same allegedly unlawful manner in the 

future, and this is not enough. To satisfy the second prong of the “capable of 

repetition” exception, Appellants must demonstrate a reasonable expectation 

that the government will act in that manner. Lopez v. City of Houston, 

617 F.3d 336, 341 (5th Cir. 2010). We agree with the district court that 

Appellees have not demonstrated a reasonable expectation that the same 

circumstances would arise again. Thus, the capable of repetition, yet evading 

review exception to mootness is not applicable to the claims in this case and 

the claims are moot.

III.

Alternatively, Appellants seek the invalidation of the 2011 elections and 

a new election. The “[i]nvalidation of a past election can, in some instances, be 

a viable remedy that will save a claim from mootness even if the election has 

passed.” Id. However, “invalidation is a[n] extraordinary remedy that can only 

be employed in exceptional circumstances, usually when there has been an 

egregious defiance of the Voting Rights Act.” Id. at 340. Appellants have not 

asserted factual allegations justifying a special elections remedy; there has 

been no evidence that the Mississippi county election officials deliberately 

defied the requirements of the Voting Rights Act or otherwise acted egregiously 

or in bad faith. We reject Appellants’ plea for a new election.

10

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60614

IV.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

11

 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/16/2014