Siggers v. Tunica County Board of Supervisors
Application for Injunction and Stay.
The application for an injunction and stay pending appeal presented to Justice SCALIA and by him referred to the Court is denied.
Justice BLACKMUN, with whom Justice STEVENS and Justice O'CONNOR join, dissenting.
I would grant the stay. In my judgment, appellants have shown both a reasonable likelihood that four Justices will vote to note probable jurisdiction as well as a "fair prospect" of success on the merits. Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 1304, 108 S.Ct. 1763, 1764, 100 L.Ed.2d 589 (1988) (KENNEDY, J., in chambers). In addition, I think the equities favor the appellants. See id., at 1305, 108 S.Ct., at 1765.
On May 14, 1991, the County submitted a reapportionment plan to the Attorney General for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That section provides that if the Attorney General does not object to a proposed plan within 60 days, the plan is deemed approved. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.
On June 24, the Justice Department requested additional information. On July 12, 59 days after the County originally submitted its preclearance request, the Chief of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section dispatched a letter to appellee announcing that
Notes[edit]
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse