Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 12 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Cite as: 538 U. S. 254 (2003)

Opinion of the Court

There is no doubt that the State was "seek[ing] to administer" the changes for which preclearance was sought when the Mississippi attorney general made his initial submission to DOJ on December 26, 2001, and when he provided additional information regarding the state-court plan on February 20, 2002. On February 26, 2002, however, the District Court "enjoined [the State] from implementing the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the [state court]," 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 559, and the State never appealed that injunction. Uncontrovertibly, the State was no longer "seek[ing] to administer" the state-court plan, and thus the 60-day time period for DOJ review was no longer running. The passing of 60 days from the date of the State's February 20, 2002, submission of the additional requested information had no legal significance, and the state-court plan was not rendered enforceable by operation of law.

Appellants' argument—that their appeal, as intervenors, is sufficient to demonstrate that the State still "seek[s] to administer" the state-court plan—is invalid on its face. The actions of a private party are not the actions of a State and cannot satisfy the prerequisite to § 5 preclearance.

C

Since we affirm the injunction on the basis of the District Court's principal stated ground that the state-court plan had not been precleared and had no prospect of being precleared in time for the 2002 election, we have no occasion to address the District Court's alternative holding that the State Chancery Court's redistricting plan was unconstitutional—a holding that the District Court specified was set forth to cover the eventuality of the principal stated ground's being rejected on appeal—and therefore we vacate it as a basis for the injunction. The District Court's alternative holding is not to be regarded as supporting the injunction we have affirmed on the principal ground, or as binding upon state and

265

Page:   Index   Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007