Judge Carlton Reeves recuses himself on own motion in NAACP v. Haley Barbour, et al

By order of late yesterday evening, Judge Carlton Reeves entered a well-researched order sua sponte (meaning without motion of any party) announcing his recusal in the case of NAACP v. Haley Barbour, et al. The order essentially says that, out of an abundance of caution and in an effort to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary, Judge Reeves is recusing. Judge Reeves says that even though it would not be true, some observers might question his ability to be impartial since he had been a life member of the NAACP at the time the suit was filed. Reeves has since resigned his life membership in the NAACP, and says that it will not be grounds for recusal.

Here's the order:

Judge Carlton Reeves Order of Recusal

This recusal, like Judge Dan Jordan's recusal, is the type of thing that allows us to keep faith in our judiciary. In hyper-political times like the present, it is vital to have a court system that is above reproach. That's why Lt. Gov. Bryant's remarks were so troubling to so many people.

So who will be the next replacement? Stay tuned, as it will likely be announced today. Also, you've got to think that the three-judge panel will be named any day now.

Clarification regarding Dickie Scruggs' participation in the 2002 redistricting lawsuit

A reader emailed the other day and suggested clarification of Dickie Scruggs' participation in the congressional redistricting lawsuit in 2002. That case was Mauldin v. Branch, and it involved the manner in which the Legislature drew the congressional districts in response to the 2000 census. You'll recall that as a result of the 2000 census numbers, Mississippi lost a congressional seat, taking us from 5 to 4.

The battle lines were drawn in that case along party lines. Counsel for the Republicans in that lawsuit were: Mike Wallace, Christopher Royce Shaw, Arthur F. Jernigan, Richard F. Scruggs, F. Keith Ball, Grant M. Fox, Staci Bozant O'Neal.

So, yes, Dickie Scruggs represented Republicans in the 2002 Congressional redistricting case. Surprised?

Also of note: Keith Ball is now a federal magistrate judge (and a damned fine one). He is currently the magistrate assigned to NAACP v. Barbour. Those of you screaming that Judge Reeves should recuse himself over his involvement in Mauldin need to make the same demand of Ball if you truly believe prior involvement in redistricting cases with counsel currently at bar is grounds for recusal.

Lots of activity in NAACP v Barbour, et al

There are 16 docket entries so far today in NAACP v. Barbour, et al, the legislative redistricting case. Here's what's been filed:

Attorney General Jim Hood's Answer and Response to Motion to Intervene

Mississippi Republican Party's Response to Motion to Intervene and Response to Motion for TRO

Governor Haley Barbour's Answer

Connie Cochran's Answer, Response to Motion to Intervene and Response to Motion for Three Judge Panel

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's Answer and Response to Motion to Intervene

Order of the Court setting deadline for responses from NAACP and the House Apportionment Committee to the opposition of Hosemann and the Mississippi Republican Party to intervention. The deadline is 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Order of the Court stating its intention to hold a hearing on the temporary restraining order. That hearing will be scheduled after Monday, April 4, 2011.

That's a lot of documents, and I don't have time to put them all on Scribd. The number of documents and a time crunch also will make the rest of this post somewhat scattered. Forgive me in advance.

Here's the skinny: As for whether or not the House Apportionment and Elections Committee should be allowed to intervene, AG Hood does not oppose it, but the Mississippi Republican Party and Secretary of State Hosemann do. The lawyer for the Mississippi Republican Party, Mike Wallace, argues that the Committee does not have a "protectable interest" in the lawsuit. In reference to the fact that the Committee was allowed to intervene 20 years ago, Wallace argues that this case is different because the House plan wasn't stricken by the Department of Justice. It's an inventive argument, but don't see it going very far. Hosemann, through his lawyer Robert Gibbs, makes a more interesting argument that the rules of the House don't specifically grant the Committee the power to enter into litigation, and therefore the Committee doesn't have the power to do so. I honestly wonder how that argument played out twenty years ago.

With respect to the TRO, which would prevent legislative elections this November under the current districts, Wallace argues that the Mississippi Republican Party didn't understand the request for a TRO until yesterday, and therefore didn't oppose it until now. Now, Wallace argues, a single judge doesn't have the authority to grant a TRO except in "extraordinary circumstances." Wallace offers no authority for this language, and the law itself imposes no such limitation on Judge Reeves' power. A thorough reading of the statute reveals that a single judge, in this case Judge Reeves, can enter a TRO if "specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted...." Furthermore, any decision by Reeves on the TRO can be reviewed by the three judge panel. Wallace admits that the districts are unconstitutional as drawn, but that the 3 judge panel should make the call on the TRO since they will, presumably have plenty of time to do so. What's interesting here is that Wallace is arguing in circles. First, he admits that the current districts are unconstitutional. Then he says that Judge Reeves should wait until a three judge panel can determine what Wallace just admitted. In short, there is no real opposition to the TRO, it's just that Wallace doesn't want Judge Reeves to be the one to grant it.

What's the takeaway from all of this? Well, the MSGOP wants to wait until after a 3 judge panel can be appointed before a TRO is entered, one that they presumably wouldn't oppose. (They just admitted the current districts are unconstitutional, after all.) It's all part of their delay game, which I've talked about ad nauseum here. They don't want the Court to move quickly enough to resolve this matter prior to June 1, which would necessitate two elections. They want two elections because they feel they have a better chance of taking the House if there are two elections. That's been their overarching strategy since this whole thing started, so it's no surprise that they're sticking with it now. I also believe that some Republican legislators were sold a bill of goods by Republican strategists as to how all of this would play out, and the TRO was, inexplicably, not something they mentioned. I believe Wallace's attempt to stay the TRO is an attempt to hold the team together in the short run.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the Mississippi Republican Party has as its attorney someone who has been hostile to the very existence of the Voting Rights Act. Wallace is a smart man and an able attorney, but he carries some baggage the MSGOP may not want associated with it in this lawsuit going forward.

A thank you to Y'all Politics for the twitter plug

Comments are broken over at Y'all Politics as they begin using Facebook as their login, but I wanted to thank them for the twitter plug. (It may be a problem on my end, Alan says it should work.) In a recent post, their "award winning Memory Division" has recalled what they seem to believe will be grounds for recusal of Judge Carlton Reeves. Seems they think that since Reeves represented individuals in the 2002 congressional redistricting case, Mauldin v. Branch, that he will now be unable to sit as judge in NAACP v. Barbour, et al. They also complain that he was co-counsel with Rob McDuff, who now represents potential intervenor House Apportionment Committee in NAACP v. Barbour, et al.

Two things: The parties aren't the same in Barbour as they were in Mauldin. So, no, Judge Reeves didn't formerly represent a party at bar in Barbour. Also, a judge's former co-counsel in a case 9 years ago appearing in a current case is not grounds for recusal. (I'm not even certain that they were actually "co-counsel" in the case, or whether they just represented parties on the same side of the "v.")

But there is something interesting about what Y'all Politics posted. Dickie Scruggs' name appears as an attorney for the appellants.

The clock's ticking on responses in NAACP v. Barbour, et al

Well, things got moving quickly this morning with Judge Dan Jordan recusing himself from the NAACP v. Barbour redistricting lawsuit. Apparently he has a relative who will be running for the legislature this November.

Enter Judge Carlton Reeves. Judge Reeves held a telephonic hearing earlier this afternoon, and the minute entry from said hearing is as follows:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Telephone Conference held on 3/30/2011. The parties are to respond to the Motion to Intervene by noon on 3/31/2011. The parties were also advised to file any answers or additional pleadings relating to this matter by noon on 3/31/2011. A text order will follow. (JS) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

Judge Reeves is getting ready to rule on two things:

First, he's going to rule on the Motion to Intervene by the House Apportionment Committee. That's likely to be granted, as no one has objected to the intervention.

Second, and of utmost importance, Judge Reeves is about to rule on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction that would prevent elections from being held this November in the current districts. Due to the fact that both the Mississippi Democratic Party and the Mississippi Republican Party have already agreed that an injunction is proper at this point, this injunction will most likely be granted. (See paragraph 78 of the MS Democratic Party's Answer and paragraph 77 of the MS Republican Party's Answer, both of which are linked below.) If you are Senators Briggs Hopson, Buck Clarke, Nolan Mettetal, Lydia Chassaniol or Ezell Lee, this is not welcome news.

Here are links to documents referenced above and others that are interesting:

Answer of the Mississippi Democratic Party

Answer of the Mississippi Republican Party

Motion to Intervene by the House Apportionment Committee

Memo in Support of the House Apportionment Committee's Motion to Intervene

Proposed Answer of the House Apportionment Committee