LITTLE ROCK — The federal judges considering whether a state Senate district’s boundaries violate the Voting Rights Act ordered the state Tuesday to certify the results of the May 22 primary in which a black incumbent was defeated by a white candidate.
The judges have not ruled in the lawsuit, and Tuesday’s order does not specifically mention how the court plans to rule. In previous orders,the court stated that its decision to carry on with the primary should not be seen as an indication of how it will ultimately resolve the case.
On May 23, plaintiffs in the case requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the secretary of state from certifying the election results, saying that certifying the results before the case is resolved would cause irrevocable harm.
The attorney general’soffice said in its responding motion that the plaintiffs were trying to do an end run around the court’s previous order that the primary be held.
“We agree with this ruling, and we await a decision in the case,” attorney general spokesman Aaron Sadler said Tuesday.
The judges are deliberating after a week-long trial in early May in which the plaintiffs contended that the boundaries of Senate District24 in eastern Arkansas were drawn to violate the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
The suit claims that the state intentionally drew boundaries to dilute the opportunity for black voters in District 24 to elect the candidate of their choice.
The district’s boundaries violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1973 as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were ratified after the Civil War to protect blacks’ civil rights, the lawsuit contends.
Chief U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright and 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lavenski Smith - a former Arkansas Supreme Court justice - heard the case May 7-10 in Helena-West Helena while early voting was taking place. On May 11, they ordered that the primary election take place. They have not set a deadline for rendering a decision in the lawsuit.
Tuesday’s order makes no reference to a decision. Instead it calls the restrainingorder request “in substance, a repetition of the motion made at the close of trial requesting the court to enjoin the primary election.”
Tuesday’s order points back to the decision to carry on with the primary election.
That order, signed by Holmes, states that Arkansas’ election apparatus was already in motion.
“Precinct boundaries and polling sites have been determined, election proclamations have been issued, and ballots have been printed. Early voting began on May 7, 2012. No doubt, votes havealready been cast, including both absentee votes and early votes cast in person.”
Sen. Jack Crumbly, D-Widener, is the District 24 incumbent and a plaintiff in the suit. He is black. His primary election opponent, Rep. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, is white. Ingram received 60.56 percent of the primary vote, according to unofficial results.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, James Valley, said the plaintiffs were trying to maintain the status quo until the court decides the case.
He said if the judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs, thatcould overturn the primary results and the certification.
“It doesn’t change anything,” Valley said. “It’s another cog in that wheel.”
He said the plaintiffs are still hoping for a decision before the Nov. 6 general election. He said they want a decision in their favor that will leave enough time for the Board of Apportionment to redraw the boundaries.
“It’s going to be a tight window, no doubt, between the court ruling, the Board of Apportionment and the November election,” he said.
Gov. Mike Beebe, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Secretary of State Mark Martin make up the Board of Apportionment, which drew the state’s House and Senate district boundaries, and are defendants in the suit.
Martin voted against the redrawn boundaries. In the lawsuit, he was represented by outside counsel, largely sided with the plaintiffs in the case and has been cleared of the charge that he meant to intentionally dilute the black vote.
Beebe and McDaniel are represented in the lawsuit by the attorney general’s office.
District 24 includes all of Crittenden County and parts of Cross, Lee, Phillips and St. Francis counties.
The case is Future Mae Jeffers v. Mike Beebe. Plaintiffs in the case were also plaintiffs in lawsuits in the 1980s and 1990s that created some House and Senate districts where black voters were in the majority.
Those districts were created to enhance the influence of black voters. They sought to make up for lower rates of black voting caused, experts said, by institutionalized bias.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 05/30/2012