Mississippi Legislative Redistricting Challenge

Lawsuit filed on behalf of the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP, four of its members and one Black voter against the State Board of Election Commissioners, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R), Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R), Mississippi Attorney General Michael Watson (R) and two Republican members of the Mississippi Legislature. The plaintiffs allege that Mississippi’s state Senate and House redistricting maps drawn with 2020 census data violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by unlawfully diluting “the voting strength of Black Mississippians and deny[ing] Black Mississippians a full and fair opportunity to participate equally to white Mississippians in the political process” and further allege that race was unconstitutionally used to achieve this dilution. The plaintiffs argue that the maps “unnecessarily ‘pack’ Black Mississippians together in some of those places, and also ‘crack’ areas with large, cohesive Black populations in some others—ultimately diminishing Black Mississippians’ true voting strength statewide and in the relevant districts.” The plaintiffs note that Mississippi’s population “is almost 38% Black—the highest percentage of any state in the nation—and sizable Black communities exist throughout the State.” Despite this, the plaintiffs argue that “Black Mississippians have been shut out of political power for most of the State’s history.” 

The plaintiffs also claim that Black voting strength is diluted in four areas as it pertains to the state Senate map and three areas as it pertains to the state House map in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. Further, the plaintiffs allege that race “was the predominant factor in the creation” of multiple state Senate and House districts without serving “any compelling state interest,” thereby creating an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs request that the legislative maps be declared unconstitutional and in violation of the VRA, the defendants be prevented from holding future elections under the maps and the court orders the adoption of new maps that “do not abridge or dilute the ability of Black voters to elect candidates of choice or otherwise violate the U.S. Constitution.”

On July 2, 2024, the district court ruled that the state Senate and House maps were a Section 2 violation, but not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On July 18, the court ordered the state legislature to enact new, Section 2 compliant maps and set dates for holding special elections prior to the end of the regular 2025 legislative session.

On April 15, a federal court found that the legislature’s new Senate districts in DeSoto County did not remedy the Section 2 violations. The state had seven days to propose a new a new map and the court found that the new house districts did remedy the Section 2 violations. On May 7, the court approved the state’s new map for DeSoto County.

On Aug. 26, 2025, Mississippi officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question of whether Section 2 can be enforced by voters through a private right of action. On Oct. 3, plaintiffs responded arguing the question had already been affirmatively answered by the Supreme Court and Congress’s intentions were clear to allow private right of actions under Section 2.

On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment finding that the state House and Senate maps violated Section 2. The Court did not address Mississippi’s private right of action question. The case is remanded back to the district court for further proceedings in light of Callais.

STATUS: On July 29, 2026, parties filed briefs on next steps. Mississippi officials indicated the legislature would pass a new map. On Aug. 11, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in response to secretary of state ordering local clerks to re-implement the 2022 map in the meantime. Pro-voters seek to block reinstatement of the 2022 map. The court will hear plaintiffs’ motion on Aug. 28.

Last updated: August 14, 2026 11:15 am EST