Case Name: Johnny DUPREE, Charlotte Tullos, Kathryn Jones & Jeff Bowman, Plaintiffs, v. Mike MOORE, Attorney General of Mississippi, in his official capacity, and the State of Mississippi, Defendants, and The Lamar County Board of Education and Trustees, in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors, and Forrest County School District and the Members of the Board of Trustees in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-08-27
Citations: 831 F. Supp. 1310
Docket Number: Civ. A. No. H90-0043(W)
Parties: Johnny DUPREE, Charlotte Tullos, Kathryn Jones & Jeff Bowman, Plaintiffs, v. Mike MOORE, Attorney General of Mississippi, in his official capacity, and the State of Mississippi, Defendants, and The Lamar County Board of Education and Trustees, in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors, and Forrest County School District and the Members of the Board of Trustees in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge, and LEE and WINGATE, District Judges.
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 831
Pages: 1310–1322

Head Matter:
Johnny DUPREE, Charlotte Tullos, Kathryn Jones & Jeff Bowman, Plaintiffs, v. Mike MOORE, Attorney General of Mississippi, in his official capacity, and the State of Mississippi, Defendants, and The Lamar County Board of Education and Trustees, in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors, and Forrest County School District and the Members of the Board of Trustees in their official capacities, Defendants/Intervenors.
Civ. A. No. H90-0043(W).
United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division.
Aug. 27, 1993.
J. Perry Sansing, W. David Watkins, Lawrence E. Allison, Jr., Holmes S. Adams, Jackson, MS, for plaintiffs.
Giles W. Bryant, Robert E. Sanders, Mississippi Atty. General’s Office, Jackson, MS, for defendants.
James H.C. Thomas, Jr., Hattiesburg, MS, John L. Maxey, II, Steven Mark Wann, Jackson, MS, William E. Andrews, III, Purvis, MS, Dennis L. Horn, Jackson, MS, for intervenors-defendants.
Before BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge, and LEE and WINGATE, District Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TOM S. LEE and WINGATE, District Judges.
Back before this three-judge court pursuant to a remand by the United States Su preme Court, this lawsuit highlights the question under Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2096, 114 L.Ed.2d 691 (1991), and under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, whether the State of Mississippi properly submitted the statutory repealer of § 37-7-611, Miss.Code Ann. (1971), to the United States Attorney General for preelearance. On an earlier day, this three-judge court which was convened under the aegis of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, and Title 28 U.S.C. § 2284 held that the repealer had been precleared since Mississippi had submitted to the United States Attorney General its comprehensive Uniform School Law, S.B. No. 2117, ch. 492, of which the repealer of § 37-7-611 was a part, and since thereafter the United States Attorney General had failed to register any objection within the requisite time period. After our holding was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, that august Court directed us to take a fresh look at the controversy sub judice under the juridical illumination cast by Clark v. Roemer which was decided after we had rendered our earlier holding. Having taken that fresh look, a majority of this panel now holds that when Mississippi submitted its comprehensive Uniform School Law, of which the repealer of § 37-7-611 was a part, Mississippi failed to abide by the Clark v. Roemer standard and identify with specificity the anticipated voting changes to be wrought by the enactment of the repealer to § 37-7-611. Accordingly, we find the repealer of § 37-7-611 to be ineffective and unenforceable unless and until the United States Attorney General preclears the repealer, or withdraws the objection, or unless and until the State of Mississippi obtains a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the repealer does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the plaintiffs' right to vote.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs, Johnny Dupree, et al., black residents and registered voters of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and members of the Board of Trustees of the Hattiesburg School District brought this action pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, contending that legislative action taken by the State of Mississippi, a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act, changed, modified or eliminated certain voting standards, practices and procedures in effect in Mississippi as of November 1, 1964. The plaintiffs' complaint, filed February 23, 1990, focused upon three then-recently enacted amendments to state law regulating municipal territorial annexations. The three targeted statutes at the bull's eye of plaintiffs' complaint were the following:
(1) The 1977 Amendment to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-59 which provides that the annexation of a municipality across a county line will not affect the school district in the annexed area unless such school district consents for the annexed territory to be included in the municipal school district of the annexing municipality;
(2) The 1978 revision of the 1977 Amendment to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-59 which covers situations where a municipality annexes farther into a county other than its own and provides for referenda in specific situations; and
(3) The 1986 repealer of Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-611. As part of the Mississippi Uniform School Law of 1986, this repealer provides that once annexed by a municipality, the annexed area will no longer be automatically merged with the municipal school district of the annexing municipality-
Plaintiffs correctly point out that these legislative actions promised to determine the boundaries of municipal and county sehool districts and the composition of the electorate for those districts.
Then, as to how the repealer of § 37-7-611 might specifically affect plaintiffs, plaintiffs showed that following its enactment, their City of Hattiesburg, situated in Forrest County, annexed other portions of Forrest County and portions of adjoining Lamar County. Plaintiffs predict that should the repealer go into effect the composition of the municipal electorate in the City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, will be enlarged and changed by the inclusion of the annexed resi dents. But, while the annexed residents will be entitled to vote for Hattiesburg City Aldermen who appoint the members of the Hattiesburg Municipal School Board of Trustees, plaintiffs note that under the new statutes these annexed residents will not be merged automatically with the Hattiesburg School District as they would have been under the old law. Instead, as correctly observed by plaintiffs, under the repealer, these residents cannot be merged with the Hattiesburg Municipal School District unless the annexed residents give their consent. Plaintiffs then opine that the Lamar County residents will bring into the City of Hattiesburg a largely white electorate which will significantly impact upon voting for City Aldermen and, indirectly, the appointment of Hattiesburg Municipal School Board members, even though the Lamar County residents may decide not to become a part of the Hattiesburg Municipal School District. Thus, aggrieved over this anomaly and convinced that these enactments fall within the embrace of § 5 since the enactments promise to impact upon voting, plaintiffs asked this court to enjoin § 37-7-611, as well as the 1977 and 1978 amendments to § 21-1-59 because they had not been precleared. See NAACP v. Hampton County Election Commission, 470 U.S. 166, 175, 105 S.Ct. 1128, 1133, 84 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985), n. 19. See also 28 C.F.R. § 51.13(d) & (e), [a]ny change in the boundaries of voting precincts ., and [a]ny change in the constituency of an official or the boundaries of a voting unit . requires preclearance].
The defendants here are the State of Mississippi and its Attorney General. The two affected school districts (Lamar and Forrest Counties) and their trustees later intervened. In response to the plaintiffs' complaint, the defendants asserted that the Mississippi legislative actions in issue already had been properly and unambiguously submitted to the United States Attorney General. Further, said defendants, since the Attorney General had not interposed an objection, the legislative actions in question had been precleared in accordance with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
In April of 1991, this panel held that the repealer of § 37-7-611, as well as the 1977 and 1978 amendments to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-59 constituted changes in voting practices and procedures sufficient to require preelearance under § 5 of the Act. The panel also found that the 1977 and 1978 amendments to § 21-1-59 were changes which had not been submitted for preelearance. Hence, the panel declared them to be unenforceable. Dupree v. Mabus, 776 F.Supp. 290 (S.D.Miss.1991) (Dupree I).
However, the panel found that the repealer of Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-611 had been precleared by the United States Attorney General on September 23,1986, after the State of Mississippi had submitted "in its entirety" its Uniform School Law Senate Bill 2117, ch. 492, of which the repealer of § 37-7-611 was a part, to the United States Attorney General for preclearance. Because Federal Regulations require that the United States Attorney General request additional information or offer objections to a submission for preclearance within 60 days, 28 C.F.R. § 51.35 (1986), now 28 C.F.R. 51.9 (1989), and because no specific objection had been made to the repealer of § 37-7-611 by the United States Attorney General when the Bill was submitted "in its entirety" on July 23, 1986, this court held that the United States Attorney General had in effect precleared the repealer of § 37-7-611.
The plaintiffs appealed the panel's finding with regard to the repealer of § 37-7-611 to the United States Supreme Court. Two months after this panel's decision, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2096, 114 L.Ed.2d 691 (1991), holding that a State must "identify with specificity each change that it wishes the United States Attorney General to consider" in a § 5 submission, and that "any ambiguity in the scope of a preclearance request must be resolved against the submitting authority." Id. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2103-04. Thereafter, this case was remanded to this panel for further consideration in light of Clark v. Roemer. See Dupree v. Moore, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1462, 117 L.Ed.2d 609 (1992). This court then directed the parties to submit briefs within the scope of the remand by the United States Supreme Court.
So, the narrow issue for this panel to reconsider on remand is whether the State of Mississippi identified the repealer of § 37-7-611 unambiguously and with the specificity required to constitute a proper submission of the matter to the United States Attorney General for preclearanee. As earlier stated, upon reconsideration, and in light of Clark v. Roemer, we conclude that the State of Mississippi did not.
PERTINENT FACTS
Mississippi cities are permitted by Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-29, et seq., (1972) to annex territory outside their boundaries by filing a petition in the Chancery Court where the territory is located. Prior to 1986, the status of city school districts, in the event of such municipal expansion, was governed by Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-611 (1972). When a city annexed territory, § 37-7-611 provided that the municipal school district automatically expanded to become coextensive with the city limits.
In 1986, the Mississippi Legislature enacted the Uniform School Law, Senate Bill 2117, chapter 492, which revised the state education code. Section 47 of this Bill specifically repealed § 37-7-611 and 22 other provisions of state law. In addition, Section 52 of the Bill amended Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-103 (1972) to provide that, when a city annexed neighboring territory, the municipal school district would expand into any already existing school district only with the consent of the school board governing the annexed territory. Together, the repeal of § 37-7-611 and the amendment of § 37-7-103 wrought the following change: when a city now annexed neighboring territory, the municipal school district would expand into the annexed territory only with the consent of the School board governing that territory. Of course, the school board of a municipal school district is generally chosen by the city's elected governing body. Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-203 (1990).
On July 22, 1986, the State of Mississippi sent the Uniform School Law to the United States Attorney General for preclearance. The cover letter submitted with the School law stated that the School Law (S.B. 2117) was being submitted "in its entirety." The letter stated that, "[f]or the sake of brevity, the submission will only set forth the particular sections which deal primarily with voting rights even though the complete act is submitted for review."
In a portion of this submission letter which was labeled "28 C.F.R. § 51.25(b)," the State described 13 of the 205 sections of the Bill. Section 47 of the Bill, which repealed § 37-7-611, was not specifically described in the State's submission letter. Therefore, the submission did not specifically state that preexisting Mississippi law provided for automatic expansion of municipal school districts without requiring the consent of the school board governing the annexed territory.
Section 52 of the Bill was among the 13 sections specifically described in the State's submission. As previously stated, Section 52 amended Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-103 (1972) to provide that, when a city annexed neighboring territory, the municipal school district would expand into any already existing school district only with the consent of the school board governing the annexed territory. The State's cover letter explained that under pre-existing law a county board of education could add territory to a municipal separate school district with the consent of the. school board of the district involved. However, the State's explanation said nothing about the previous method of automatic expansion of a municipal school district under § 37-7-611.
In addition to the letter, the State also included with its submission a certified copy of the bill and a looseleaf notebook entitled "Senate Bill Number 2117—Comparison of Current Law and New Law." The 467-page notebook contained the text of each provision of the Uniform School Law, together with photocopied pages containing provisions of prior state law, if any, that were amended by that provision. The text of Section 47 appeared in the enclosed bill and in the notebook, but the texts of the 23 provisions of law repealed by section 47 were not included in the notebook. The text of Section 47 simply stated that 23 cited provisions of state law— including § 37-7-611—that "provide for the creation and operation of municipal separate school districts" are repealed.
On August 29, 1986, the United States Attorney General sent a letter to the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Edwin Lloyd Pittman, stating that he had no objection to Senate Bill 2117 as submitted. The United States Attorney General reserved the right to reexamine the matter within the remainder of the 60 day review period. The United States Attorney General also wrote:
"The Attorney General does hot interpose any objection to the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill No. 2117 (1986), as identified in your July 22, 1986, letter. However, we feel a responsibility to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of such a change. In addition, as authorized by Section 5, the Attorney General reserves the right to reexamine this submission if additional information that would otherwise require an objection comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day review period. See. also 28 C.F.R. 51.42 and 51.48.
We note that several of the provisions of the Senate Bill No. 2117 (1986) authorize officials of political subdivisions of the State to make changes affecting voting which are viewed as enabling legislation. Therefore, local officials are not relieved of their responsibility to seek preclearance, pursuant to the requirements of Section 5, of any changes affecting voting (e.g., changing voting precinct lines, polling places, special election dates and procedures, boundary changes, etc.) which are adopted as a result of Senate Bill No. 2117. 28 C.F.R. 51.14."
Based on this portion of United States Attorney General's letter, the State of Mississippi says that it was confused about the preclearance of Senate Bill 2117. The State's cover memorandum to the United States Attorney General discussed only 13 sections of the bill, those sections the State of Mississippi determined were most relevant to voting rights. The repealer of § 37-7-611 was not one of the 13 sections set forth. Because of the wording of the August 29, 1986, letter, the State of Mississippi says it did not understand whether only those 13 sections were being approved, or whether the United States Attorney General was considering all the rest of 2117.
So, on December 30, 1987, the State of Mississippi resubmitted the repealer of Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-611 for affirmative preclearance. This resubmission included Section 47 of the Uniform School Act and explained that it was the automatic expansion of municipal school districts which had been repealed.
On February 29, 1988, the United States Attorney General requested extensive additional information regarding the repealer of § 37-7-611. This request came at the time of statewide election campaigning and' was not immediately addressed by the State. After the election, the State of Mississippi submitted the requested information on January 27, 1989.
After reviewing the information submitted by the State of Mississippi, the United States Attorney General objected to the repealer of § 37-7-611 on March 31, 1989. The Attorney General concluded that repealing the automatic annexation provision of § 37-7-611 would "create a class of city voters who will not reside in the city school system yet may vote for - the city governing body . which under Mississippi law appoints the city school board." The United States Attorney General noted that the State had provided "no explanation for the establishment of such political system which appears not only to have the potential to impact negatively on the influence of minority city school district residents but also to treat black voters differently than white voters."
The State of Mississippi elected not to pursue at that time a declaratory judgment before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, opting instead on-January 12, 1990, to make a formal request to the United States Attorney General that he reconsider and withdraw his objection. The State argued that Section 47 had been sufficiently described in its initial submission as providing for the creation and operation of municipal separate school districts. The State also argued that the School Law had been submitted in its entirety. Hence, reasoned the State, the United States Attorney General had no authority to grant limited preclearanee of a law submitted in its entirety-
The State's arguments did not convince the United States Attorney General and by letter of May 25, 1990, he declined to withdraw his March, 1989, objection. In his letter, the United States Attorney General specifically responded to the State's contention that the repealer of § 37-7-611 necessarily had been precleared in 1986, stating:
Section 5, as interpreted by the courts and our guidelines, plainly fixed the responsibility for identifying voting changes on the state, not the United States Attorney General, yet the state appears to be arguing . that the Attorney General should have uncovered voting changes of which the state itself seemingly was unaware at the time the prior submissions were made.
So, during the period of July 22,1986, until May 25, 1990, although the State of Mississippi and the United States Attorney General had addressed preclearance of Mississippi's Uniform School Law; the parties had reached no common agreement with respect to the repealer of § 37-7-611. The Attorney' General concluded that the statute had not been precleared, while the State said that it had. This lawsuit was born in February 1990, after the City of Hattiesburg had annexed neighboring territory in Forrest and Lamar Counties in 1989.
ANALYSIS
The juridical polestar which illuminates the key points of law here and leads us decisively to a solution is the case of Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2096, 114 L.Ed.2d 691 (1991), the decision upon which the remand of this case from the United States Supreme Court is based. Decided pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,' Clark fleshed out -the skeletal question of what constitutes requisite notice by a state in a submission to the United States Attorney General under § 5. The specific interrogatory before the Clark Court was whether in preclearing newer portions of legislation the Attorney General also had approved undiscussed, unpreeleared, older portions of the legislation where the newer and older portions interlocked to comprise the enactment. Emphasizing the obligation of States to provide requisite notice to the Attorney General of all prior unpreeleared voting changes, the Court answered the question in the negative, first commenting that "McCain [McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. 236, 104. S.Ct. 1037, 79 L.Ed.2d 271 (1984) ] establishes a presumption that the Attorney General will review only the current changes in election practices effected by the submitted legislation, not pri- or unpreeleared changes reenacted in the amended legislation." Id. 500 U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2104. Then, added the Court:
In light of its legal errors, the District Court's finding that the Attorney General "expressly approved" the prior unpreeleared changes cannot stand. Neither the initial submission nor the Attorney General's- ruling upon it can be deemed to include the earlier unpreeleared seats. Louisiana's submissions of contemporary legislation to the Attorney General failed as a matter of law to put him on notice that the prior unsubmitted changes were included. None of the submissions informed the Attorney General that prior voting changes were uncleared and were being transmitted along with the new changes. In most instances, Louisiana submitted only the legislation containing the new voting change. The record contains five submission letters, but these communications do not give requisite notice. Two were mere cover letters that added nothing to the submitted legislation. The other three letters note changes in the number of judges in a District, but as we have explained, this alone does not constitute a submission of the prior uncleared changes.
Id. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2104-05.
Hence, the Clark Court held that a State must "identify with specificity each change that it wishes the Attorney General to consider" in a § 5 submission. Id., at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2104. Further, stated the Court, "any ambiguity in the scope of a preclearance request must be resolved against the submitting authority." Id., at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2103. Explaining the rationale for this approach, the Court pointed to the "redoubtable obligations" of the Attorney General generated by the sheer volume of electoral changes—some 17,000—submitted each year to the Justice Department which is tasked with undertaking independent investigations on limited resources. Id., at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2104. The Court also voiced its apprehensions that a contrary approach "would dimin ish covered jurisdictions' responsibilities for self-monitoring under § 5 and would create incentives for them to forego the submission process altogether." Id. 111 S.Ct. at 2104.
Upon measuring the facts sub judice by the bedrock principles enunciated by Clark, we conclude that the repeal of § 37-7-611 by the Uniform School Law was not precleared when the Attorney General precleared the voting changes as identified in the State's 1986 letter. In its 1986 submission, Mississippi affirmatively identified and discussed only 13 provisions of the Uniform School Law. Only those provisions, identified with specificity, then were properly submitted for preclearance. Thus, the Attorney General's letter of August 29, 1986, wherein he stated that he did "not interpose any objection to the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill No. 2117 (1986) as identified in your [the State of Mississippi's] July 22, 1986, letter," precleared only the specifically identified changes noted in the 13 provisions.
Further, the State's submission letter did not mention Section 47 or § 37-7-611 at all. Hence, the State's submission failed to mention that pre-existing Mississippi law provided for automatic expansion of municipal school districts without requiring the consent of the school board governing the affected, annexed territory. Although the State's submission letter did discuss Section 52, in that portion of the submission letter the State did not discuss the repealed matter of automatic expansion. In discussing Section 52, the State merely explained the consent factor relative to alterations of school district boundaries. So, even if Section 52 in effect amounted to a repeal of § 37-7-611 by operation of state law, that fact was not submitted to the Attorney General in 1986 nor reviewed by him as such.
Nor did the State discuss, mention, or allude to the automatic expansion provision of § 37-7-611 in the 467-page looseleaf notebook entitled "Senate Bill Number 2117— Comparison of Current Law and New Law" it submitted with its cover letter. While the text of Section 47 appeared in the notebook, the texts of the 23 provisions repealed by Section 47 were not included. The accompanying explanation provided in the text—that the repealed sections "provide for the creation and operation of municipal school districts"—neither refers to any voting change nor addresses at all the repeal of the automatic expansion provision.
In the past, Mississippi admitted that after receiving the United States Attorney General's letter; of August 29, 1986, wherein the Attorney General discussed only 13 sections of the Bill, Mississippi was uncertain whether the United States Attorney General had considered the repealer of § 37-7-611. So, to resolve this ambiguous circumstance, the State resubmitted the repealer of § 37-7-611, sinee it was not one of the 13 sections set forth in the Attorney General's letter. Apparently, the State of Mississippi now asks this court to forget these facts since "any ambiguity in the scope of a preclearance request must be resolved against the submitting authority." Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2103.
In sum, Mississippi's 1986 submission is precisely that circumstance condemned by Clark v. Roemer. Should this court permit Mississippi to submit a haystack of documents and obligate the Attorney General to painstakingly search for any voting change needle, as Mississippi has done here, this court would be ignoring Clark's clear pronouncement that a State must "identify with specificity each change that it wishes the Attorney General to consider" in a § 5 submission. Id., at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2104. Similarly, Mississippi's stance that the repealer of § 37-7-611 stands precleared because the Uniform School Law was submitted "in its entirety," if accepted by this court, would but "add to the Attorney General's already redoubtable obligations the additional duty to research each submission to ensure that all earlier unsubmitted changes had been brought to light," id., and undoubtedly "diminish covered jurisdictions' responsibili ties for self-monitoring under § 5 and would create incentives for them to forego the submission process altogether." Id.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion of the defendants and intervenors for summary judgment that the repealer of Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-611 was precleared on September 23,1986, is not well taken and the same is hereby denied. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. The repealer of Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-611 is hereby found to be ineffective and unenforceable unless and until the State of Mississippi gets either the United States Attorney General to preclear the repealer, or to withdraw his objection, or the State of Mississippi obtains a declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia District Court stating that the repealer has no discriminatory effect upon voting rights in Mississippi.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
. The note states that when Congress extended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 it did so out of concern for the prevalence of changes in state voting procedures which had been enacted and never submitted for preclearance.
. Section 51.9 states:
(a) The Attorney General shall have 60 days in which to interpose an objection to a submitted change affecting voting.
(b) Except as specified in § 51.37, 51.39, and 51.42 the 60-day period shall commence upon receipt by the Department of Justice of a submission.
(c)The 60-day period shall mean 60 calendar days, with the day of receipt of the submission not counted. If the final day of the period should fall on a Saturday, Sunday, any day designated as a holiday by the President or Congress of the United States or any other day that is not a day of regular business for the Department of Justice, the Attorney General shall have until the close of the next full business day in which to interpose an objection. The date of the Attorney General's response shall be the date on which it is mailed to the submitting authority.
. Defendants-intervenors, Lamar County Board of Education and Trustees and Forrest County School District and Members of the Board of Trustees, argue that summary judgment is not appropriate because there are disputed issues of fact here which require a hearing. See E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Services International, 968 F.2d 549, 553 (5th Cir.1992) (where the facts are not in dispute, the court focuses on whether a movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). This court is persuaded otherwise and is convinced that the undisputed facts set out herein are all that are necessary to resolve the issue before the court.
. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-29 provides in part:
When any such ordinance (annexing territory) shall be passed by the municipal authorities, such municipal authorities shall file a petition in the chancery court of the county in which such municipality is located; however, when a municipality wishes to annex or extend its boundaries across and into an adjoining county such municipal authorities shall file a petition in the chancery court of the county in which the territory is located....
. Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-611 (1972) provided in pertinent part:
Where the corporate limits of any municipality which constitutes a municipal school district, either with or without added territory, are extended so as to include the whole or any part of an existing adjacent school district in the county school system or municipal separate district, then such adjacent school district, or such part thereof as is included within the corporate limits of the municipality by reason of the extension thereof, shall thereby automatically be merged with and become part of such municipal school district....
. Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-103 as amended provides:
From and after July 1, 1987, the school board of any school district shall have full jurisdiction, power and authority, at any regular meeting thereof or at any special meeting called for that purpose, to abolish such existing district, or to reorganize, change or alter the boundaries of any such district. In addition thereto, with the consent of the school board of the school district involved, the school board may add to such school district any part of the school district adjoining same, and with the consent of the school board of the school district involved, may detach territory from such school district and annex same to an adjoining district.
. Miss.Code Ann. § 37-7-203(1) provides in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided herein, the trustees of such a municipal separate school district shall be elected by a majority of the governing authorities of the municipality at the first meeting of the governing authorities held in the month of February of each year, and the term of office of the member so elected shall commence on the first Saturday of March following.
. Section 51.25(b) (1986) states:
(b) If the change affecting voting is not readily apparent on the face of the document provided under paragraph (a) or is not embodied in a document, a clear statement of the change explaining the difference between the submitted change and the prior law or practice, or explanatory materials adequate to disclose to the Attorney General the difference between the prior and proposed situation with respect to voting.
. Hence, this court does not find persuasive the holding in Greenville Public School District v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 575 So.2d 956 (Miss.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1512, 117 L.Ed.2d 649 (1992), which held that the Attorney General had in effect precleared the repeal of § 37-7-611 when he precleared Section 52.