Opinion ID: 1684982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory authority to draw congressional districts.

Text: ¶ 13. Our statutes clearly provide that the only governmental entity in this state that is authorized to draw congressional districts is the Legislature. See Miss.Code Ann. § 5-3-123 (Rev.2002). That power is not granted to any other governmental entity by the Mississippi Constitution, statutes, or case law. ¶ 14. The power to assist the Legislature with professional, technical and other expertise in redistricting is given to all political subdivisions, state agencies, and all other creatures of the state of Mississippi. Miss.Code Ann. § 5-3-127 (Rev. 2002). Because the state courts are not mentioned specifically in either § 5-3-123 or § 5-3-127, they must necessarily fall under the category of all other creatures of the state of Mississippi. Therefore, state courts are only authorized to assist in redistricting, not to engage in the act of redistricting. The chancery court was clearly erroneous in assuming jurisdiction of this matter in which the parties requested the court to engage in redistricting. ¶ 15. Our case law clearly states that chancery courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over congressional redistricting. In re McMillin, 642 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss.1994) (Chancery Courts in this state do not have jurisdiction to enjoin elections or to otherwise interfere with political and electoral matters which are not within the traditional reach of equity jurisdiction.); Brumfield v. Brock, 169 Miss. 784, 142 So. 745, 746 (1932) (By a long line of decisions this court has held that courts of equity deal alone with civil and property rights and not with political rights.). ¶ 16. This ruling is supported by the United States District Court's finding as follows: This predicate conclusion raises the next question that we must resolve: whether any enactment of the Mississippi legislature grants to the chancery court the power to redistrict the State of Mississippi for congressional elections. We find no such statute. Furthermore, no case of the Mississippi Supreme Court has ever indicated there is such a statute. We thus come to the final conclusion that the redistricting plan for congressional elections in 2002 produced by the Hinds County Chancery Court transgresses Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, is therefore unconstitutional, and is consequently a nullity....    [C]ongressional redistricting must be done within the perimeters of the legislative processes, whether the redistricting is done by the legislature itself or pursuant to the valid delegation of legislative power. We have found no cases that support a contrary conclusion.    [W]e can find no legislative act upon which to base the chancery court's authority to act in congressional redistricting. While the Mississippi legislature has empowered other state bodies to redistrict a number of state electoral districts, it has not authorized any other state body, including the chancery court, to redistrict congressional districts. Smith v. Clark, 189 F.Supp.2d at 550, 554, 556 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). ¶ 17. The United States District Court criticized this Court's summary order in In re Mauldin that the chancery court did have jurisdiction over this matter, stating, The court did not provide any basis for its holding, did not refer to its earlier cases to the contrary, and did not point to any legislative authority that authorized the chancery court to act. Id. at 557 (footnote omitted). In light of our interpretation of statutory law and upon reconsideration of our previous ruling, we reverse that order and rule that no Mississippi court has jurisdiction to draw plans for congressional redistricting. ¶ 18. We therefore find that the Hinds County Chancery Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over this matter. [6]