Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/840

 502ORD$$1C 02-10-99 16:45:47 PGT•ORD1BV (Bound Volume)

ORDERS 502 U. S.

933

November 4, 1991

Miscellaneous Orders. (See also Nos. 91–5052, 91–5111, 91–5166, 91–5167, 91–5244, 91–5246, 91–5307, 91–5331, 91–5332, 91– 5401, 91–5416, 91–5476, 91–5583, 91–5594, 91–5692, 91–5730, and 91–5732, ante, p. 16.) No. A–316 (91–6255). Siggers et al. v. Tunica County Board of Supervisors et al. D. C. N. D. Miss. Application for injunction and stay pending appeal, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, 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 (1988) (Kennedy, J., in chambers). In addition, I think the equities favor the appellants. See id., at 1305. On May 14, 1991, the county submitted a reapportionment plan to the Attorney General for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 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 Department of Justice 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 “the sixty-day period for the changes now before us will now run concurrently with receipt of all the supplemental information. Therefore, by September 3, 1991, we will make a determination on the instant changes. See the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C. F. R. 51.39).” On September 3, the Justice Department denied preclearance, finding that the county had not met its burden of showing that its redistricting and electoral plan “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” On September 13, a three-judge District Court denied appellants’ motion for an injunction. Appellants filed their request for injunctive relief in this Court on October 13. Due to an error in