D. Michael Hurst, a partner at Phelps Dunbar, LLP, secured a final dismissal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on June 24, ending a Voting Rights Act lawsuit that challenged the DeSoto County, Mississippi, 2022 redistricting map. This decision marks one of the first federal court cases decided after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Louisiana v. Callais.
After a 12-day bench trial involving 36 witnesses and more than 300 exhibits, Senior U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of the three conditions set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles needed to establish a vote dilution claim under Section 2.
“The court's decision confirms that DeSoto County conducted its redistricting process lawfully, transparently, and in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements,” said Mike Hurst, Phelps partner and lead counsel for the county. “Our Phelps trial team did an incredible job in such a complex case. We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the evidence.”
Phelps argued that the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors followed the constitutional process for redistricting after the 2020 Census. The board engaged a professional redistricting consultant in 2021, who met with concerned citizens regarding the process. The board made proposed redistricting maps available for public viewing and conducted a public hearing on June 6, 2022, where it solicited input, received and considered proposed maps from citizens, and ultimately adopted the map at issue.
In its ruling, the court found that:
- The plaintiffs' expert-drawn illustrative maps impermissibly used race as a districting criterion, in violation of the Callais standard.
- The plaintiffs' illustrative maps failed to satisfy the county's legitimate districting objectives, including maintaining incumbents in their districts, preserving communities of interest, and ensuring compactness.
- The plaintiffs failed to provide the court with an analysis of racially polarized voting that controls for party affiliation, as is now required under Callais.
The Gingles framework requires plaintiffs to satisfy all three factors before courts consider broader sets of facts, known as a “totality of the circumstances” analysis. Since the court found the plaintiffs’ evidence met none of the Gingles factors, it did not address the remaining “totality of the circumstances” issue.
The Phelps trial team included partners Mike Hurst, Nick Morisani, Tommy Siler, and Mark Halbert and associates Sonya Dickson and Nash Gilmore, along with paralegal Natalie Barfield.