Opinion ID: 65363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Remedial Proceedings

Text: After concluding that defendants were liable under § 2, the court ordered that each party submit a proposed remedy. To that end, the court considered testimony at two evidentiary hearings: one held prior to the August 2007 primary election; the other, after the election. Upon considering the evidence, the district court issued its remedial order. On July 30, 2007, the district court conducted the first evidentiary hearing. There, the court considered the respective remedies proffered by the government and defendants. The government urged the district court to appoint a Referee-Administrator to “carry out almost all aspects of Democratic Primary elections, though the [d]efendants would otherwise be permitted to operate party functions as usual.” The government further requested that the court delay the county’s upcoming primary election. Additionally, the government sought to limit defendants’ access to the Circuit Clerk’s office two weeks prior to each election and their access to polling places on election day. In their response, 11 defendants asserted that they had undertaken various voluntary steps in an effort to improve the county’s electoral process and that these steps had cured the practices found violative of the Voting Rights Act. Defendants further represented to the court that Brown would not participate in the absentee ballot process, that absentee ballots would be properly counted, that candidates and their representatives would be permitted to challenge absentee ballots, that individuals would not be permitted to offer unsolicited assistance to voters, and that poll managers would generally be instructed according to the MISSISSIPPI POLL MANAGER GUIDE. During the hearing, Brown testified that the only part he intended to play in the primary election was to certify the results. In view of these representations, the parties jointly recommended that the court permit the August 2007 primary election to go forward and to delay the subsequent runoff; the district court acquiesced and issued an order accordingly. Federal observers were authorized and, in August, the primary election took place. At the second hearing, convened August 22, 2007, the district court was presented with testimony concerning the events of the primary election. Despite defendants’ representations, the election replayed many of the faulty characteristics of the 2003 elections. First, Brown remained involved in the electoral process: he had access to the absentee ballots the night before the election; he was responsible for assigning and replacing poll managers; and he interjected himself, yet again, into the ballot-counting process at two separate precincts. At the Earl Nash precinct, Mildred Reed, a poll manager, received a call from Brown in which he ordered her to “rush up” the counting process. At the Macon Fire Station precinct, testimony showed that Brown called Samantha Dixon, who then announced that Brown just called and that it was “time to wrap things up and close down.” With Brown’s call to Dixon, the absentee ballot review process prematurely ended with numerous ballots left unexamined. Unwilling to yield his authority, Brown stated to a federal observer that “I don’t 12 care what the court says. I am still primarily responsible for running this election.” Second, poll managers failed to properly count absentee ballots and to address absentee-ballot challenges during the ballot counting. The MISSISSIPPI POLL MANAGER GUIDE contains, inter alia, a list of the steps to be followed when counting absentee ballots,9 but the evidence indicates such guidance was ignored. Catherine Johnson, a poll manager at the Earl Nash precinct, was trained to believe she possessed the ultimate decisionmaking authority—or veto power—for all absentee-ballot challenges; she was heard stating that “I don’t care what the poll managers vote, I don’t care what their vote is. I’m going to veto it and we’ll count the ballot.” At this news, the poll managers who had earlier sustained a number of challenges no longer considered challenges. At the Macon Fire House precinct, a federal observer noted that Stowers, a poll manager, ordered the absentee-ballot counting closed before any of the ballots were examined for irregularities. Similarly, no challenges were entertained at the Shuqualak precinct because candidates and their representatives were not permitted to sit close enough to challenge the ballots. And third, federal observers recorded numerous instances of improper voter assistance that poll managers permitted. At the Macon Fire House, federal observers reported that fifteen black individuals, who refused to identify themselves, remained immediately outside the polling place and proceeded to escort many black voters directly into the voting booth where they told the voter for whom to vote. Federal observers tallied as many as 180 instances of such assistance despite efforts by poll manager Stowers to interfere with the observers’ duties. 9 For example, the GUIDE instructs poll managers, among other things, to “[a]nnounce the name, address, and precinct as shown on each absentee ballot envelope”; to “make sure the affidavit . . . on the envelope and the application is sufficient”; and to “[g]ive anyone present the opportunity to challenge any absentee ballot.” MISS. SEC’Y STATE, MISSISSIPPI POLL MANAGER GUIDE 28 (2008), available at http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/ Mississippi%20TSX%20Poll%20Managers%20Guide.pdf. 13 Having heard the above evidence, the district court issued its remedial order on August 27, 2007. See United States v. Brown, No. 4:05-CV-33TSL-LRA, 2007 WL 2461965 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 27, 2007). In it, the court appointed a Referee-Administrator to organize the county’s Democratic primary elections and to serve until November 20, 2011; limited the role that defendants may play in supervising future primary elections; and directed poll managers to apply Mississippi’s election laws in counting ballots and preventing improper voter assistance. Defendants now appeal both the court’s finding of liability and order remedying § 2’s violation.