### 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 SUPERVISO RS; 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614
Defendants

- Appellees
JIM HOOD,

Intervenor Defendant

- Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REVER END FRANK LEE, on behalf of him self 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, MISSISSIP PI 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 ADVAN CEMENT 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614

v.
SIMPSON COUN TY, 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 o fficial 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

- Appe llant

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: 05/16/2014No. 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 COMMISSI ONERS; 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, MISSI SSIPPI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE

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

- 60614 COMMITTEE; WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; SHELLY ASHLEY

- PALMERTREE, in his

o fficial 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; E DWARD 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614
USDC No s

. 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 challeng ing the dismissal of complaints asserting Fourteenth Amendment “one person, one vote” claims against
certain Mississippi officials

. T he 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 c ontroversy 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, S impson, 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 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

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

2 Th e Tallahatchie County case was stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. See Consolidation Order in Winston Cnty. NAACP v. Winston Cnty. Bd. of Superviso rs , ND Civil Action 1:11cv59

- MPM

- JMV (Nov. 20, 2013). 6 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614 adopted by their respective Boards following the 2000 decennial census. In the middle of the qua lification 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 malapport ionment, but it bec ame 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 we re 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. I n 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 tar geted 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 grant ed. As d iscussed in de tail in our prior opinion, Hancock County Board of Sup ervisors 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 agr eed that the plaintiffs did have standing, we vacated the district court orders dismissing 7 Case: 13-60614 Document: 00512633627 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614 the complaints and remanded for consideration of m ootness. Id. at 201. The
district court then considered whether the cont roversy was moot and, finding that it was, dismissed the case. Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Sup erviso rs 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,
74 4 (5 th Cir. 2012) (c itation omitted). Generally, a request for an injunction is moot upon the happening of th e 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 autho rity to resolve the issues that it presents.” La. Envt’l Action Network , 677 F.3d at 74 4 (citation omitted)

. We review questions of federal jurisdiction de novo , including arguments that a case or controversy has become moot. Id

. When the district cour t 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 “capab le 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 e lements. 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614
Scott , 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5 th 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 pron g. 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 , 66 7 F.3 d 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’ co unsel 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 th e redistricting process earlier, there would have been plenty of time between the census and the election to complete
it. Finally, A ppellants contended that the same situation giving rise to this action will occur every twenty years, and they will not hav e 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, Appellee s 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614 preclearance was the primary impediment to the counties’ ability to redistrict in time for the 2011 elections, and as the district cou rt 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
ha ve 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 (5 th 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, y et 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 so me instances, be a viable remedy that will save a claim from mootness even if the election ha s passed.” Id

. However, “invalidation is a[n] extraordinary remedy that can only be employed in exceptional circumstances, usually when there has been an egregio us 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 t he 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: 05/16/2014No. 13

- 60614
IV.
T he district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

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