Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:99CV138-A
March 23, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court are two motions of the plaintiffs: (1) a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings and injunctive relief and (2) a motion for preliminary and/or permanent injunction. Plaintiffs, registered voters in Montgomery County, Mississippi, brought the instant action in order to challenge the constitutionality of the method of electing the Montgomery County School District Superintendent of Education. Defendants, the Montgomery County Election Commission and its various members, have filed responses in which they admit that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor as well as the injunctive relief.
Joe Moore, the present county superintendent of education, has been dismissed from the case by plaintiffs.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including an order for entry of a final judgment. Therefore, the undersigned has authority to render an opinion regarding this motion for summary judgment. Because defendant has included matters outside the pleadings in its first motion to dismiss, the court shall treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
Motions brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) are "designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking at the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts." Hebert Abstract Co., Inc. v. Touchstone Properties, Ltd., 914 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1990). Defendants dispute none of the facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint upon which the court relies in considering the instant motion.
The city of Winona, Mississippi, is located within Montgomery County, Mississippi, and both Winona and the county maintain separate school districts. The voting age population of the county as of the 1990 census is 8,882 and the voting age population of Winona is 4,121. The voting age population of the city makes up 46% of the voting age population of the county as a whole. Furthermore, no person who is a resident of the Winona municipal school district may serve on the county school board or vote for members of the county school board. However, Joe Moore serves as the present county superintendent of education even though he is a resident of the municipal school district, and the county school superintendent is elected by all qualified voters in Montgomery County, including residents of the Winona municipal school district. Moore won the 1995 and 1999 Democratic party primaries for his office despite receiving less than half of the votes from voters residing within the county school district because he won a large number of votes from voters living within the municipal school district.
Plaintiffs rely upon Hosford v. Ray, 806 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.Miss. 1992) for their position that Montgomery County's method of allowing residents of the municipal school district to participate in elections for the county school superintendent unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of county residents. The court in Hosford found:
[A] practice of allowing municipal separate school district electors to vote for the county school superintendent of education: (a) dilutes the vote of those residents who reside within the county, but outside the municipal separate school district; (b) creates an irrational situation, wholly irrelevant to the state's objective of electoral participation in the selection of elected offices; (c) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (d) provides the state a compelling interest to exclude the residents of the municipal separate school district from voting for the educational system's administrators.Id. at 1303. The facts in Hosford are identical to the facts in the case sub judice. Although not bound by Hosford, this court finds the reasoning of the court therein persuasive. Furthermore, in their response to the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings defendants concede that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested. Defendants' only reservation is that the special election requested by plaintiffs as relief be held concurrently with the general election scheduled for November 7, 2000, in order to save costs.
Accordingly, the court finds plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings to be well taken, and plaintiffs should be granted the relief requested therein. Defendants must conduct a special election for the position of Montgomery County School District School Superintendent in which residents of the Winona school district are not allowed to participate. Defendants must conduct a constitutional election for the post in conjunction with the November 7, 2000, general election, including appropriate primaries and provisions for absentee balloting.
A separate order consistent with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to the memorandum opinion signed this day, it isORDERED:
Plaintiffs' motion made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) is granted.
Defendants are hereby ordered to conduct a special election for the position of Montgomery County School District School Superintendent in a constitutional manner consistent with the opinion issued concurrently herewith. The special election must be held in conjunction with the general election already scheduled for November 7, 2000.
Plaintiffs' motion [16-1] for a preliminary and/or permanent injunction seeking special election relief is dismissed as moot.
This action is dismissed with prejudice, with costs taxed to defendants Montgomery County Election Commission, Katie Burns, Lillie Flowers, Sammye Hemmingway, Frances Laster, and Sybil Tharp.