Connect with us

Mississippi

How Mississippi man’s release from Nashville jail ended in Lauren Johansen’s death. ‘Someone in our office made a mistake’

Published

on

How Mississippi man’s release from Nashville jail ended in Lauren Johansen’s death. ‘Someone in our office made a mistake’


play

Editor’s note: This story contains descriptions of domestic abuse. If you or someone you know needs help, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233.

A Mississippi father is blaming Nashville’s justice system for his daughter’s death earlier this month, days after her ex-boyfriend was released from a Middle Tennessee jail.

Advertisement

Bricen John Rivers, 23, of Saucier, Mississippi, is charged with murder in connection with the death of Lauren Johansen, 22, of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, according to the Harrison County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Office.

Johansen’s body was found in the trunk of a car in Gulfport, Mississippi, on July 3. Police arrested Rivers around 11 p.m. that same day after a nine-hour manhunt involving about 55 officers from eight different agencies.

Johansen’s father, Robert Johansen, believes his daughter’s death could have been prevented if not for several legal missteps in Nashville.

A little more than a week before his Mississippi arrest, Rivers was released on bond from a Nashville jail, where he had been held since December awaiting trail on four charges, including two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, related to what police described as a bloody attack on Lauren Johansen while the two were vacationing in Music City.

Advertisement

Records show that several instructions outlined in a court order detailing the conditions of Rivers’ release were not followed, which Robert Johansen says allowed Rivers to leave Nashville, travel to Mississippi and kill his daughter.

Davidson County Chief Deputy Criminal Court Clerk Julius Sloss acknowledged this week that his office made a mistake when it came to sharing information with the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office on how Rivers should be released.

Rivers’ bonding company said it, too, didn’t know the full conditions of his release because the clerk did not provide them. The clerk, however, said it is the full responsibility of the bonding company to know the conditions and understand what’s being signed beforehand.

Because of the communication breakdowns, Rivers was released from jail on his own instead of in the custody of a bonding agent, as ordered, on June 24 and the release occurred later than the court ordered. When he was picked up by a bonding agent that same day, Rivers was taken to the wrong GPS monitoring company — one that was created just seven days earlier — and that monitoring company was unaware that Rivers was not supposed to travel outside of Davidson County until several days later, when it says it received the court order with bond conditions for the first time.

Advertisement

By then, Rivers had left Tennessee for Mississippi.

He returned to Nashville on June 29 because of an issue with his ankle monitor — after allegedly violating his bond conditions for days — but he didn’t stay long.

By July 2, the day he was supposed to show up in a Davidson County courtroom, the battery on Rivers’ ankle monitor had started to die, last tracking him in Biloxi, Mississippi. The tracking company and bond agents tried to contact him, but no one could get in touch.

Why Rivers was charged in Nashville

Lauren Johansen and Rivers came to Nashville on Dec. 7. They visited the Frist Art Museum on Broadway and Topgolf near the Cumberland River before returning to their Airbnb and heading out to a local bar to watch a football game, according to an arrest affidavit from the Metro Nashville Police Department.

Johansen told police that while at the bar, Rivers accused her of having sex with the bartender, and the couple left.

Advertisement

The affidavit said Rivers slapped and punched Johansen, took her phone so she could not call for help, drove away from the area and refused to stop, despite her pleas. When he eventually did stop the car, police say he began attacking Johansen.

More: 169 a day: Reports of domestic violence in Tennessee reach tens of thousands each year

More: ‘A license to abuse’: How COVID created, amplified domestic violence across US, Tennessee

She told police she had a gun in her bag on the back seat, but Rivers held her down, preventing her from getting to the gun, according to the affidavit.

She recalled that they were in a parking lot for about an hour, and she kicked and screamed and blew the car’s horn every time she saw a vehicle pass them, the affidavit said.

Advertisement

Rivers held his forearm against Johansen’s throat until she saw black and got dizzy as she continued to scream for help, the affidavit said.

Nashville Police Officer James Harbin approached the vehicle and saw and heard Johansen kicking and screaming for help, Harbin testified at hearing in March, a court order shows. When the officer opened the door, the two were covered in blood, Rivers was on top of Johansen and Rivers appeared to be intoxicated, the order said.

Rivers had no injuries.

Johansen had a cut on her forehead, her face was severely beaten and one of her eyes was swollen shut, according to photos of her included as an exhibit in the Nashville case against Rivers and viewed by The Tennessean.

She was hospitalized for two days.

Advertisement

Rivers was arrested, charged and indicted by a Davidson County grand jury in April on two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated stalking and witness coercion.

How did Rivers get out of Nashville?

Criminal Court Judge Cheryl Blackburn reduced Rivers’ bond from $250,000 to $150,000 on April 3 after a bond hearing on March 13, Davidson County trial court administrator Bart Pickett said. The Tennessee Constitution does not allow for bond to be revoked in anything other than capital cases.

District attorney spokesperson Steve Hayslip said his office adamantly opposed a reduced bond for Rivers.

The bond reduction order set out several conditions for Rivers, including that he wear a GPS ankle monitor, live in Davidson County, not have any contact with Lauren Johansen and not possess any kind of weapon. He had an address lined up to stay at in Nashville, records show.

Elite Bonding was approved by the court to post his bond on June 4.

Advertisement

Elite Bonding owner Bill Tomlinson said he decided against handling the case because he was not sure how Rivers was going to live in Davidson County without having family here. On June 5, On Time Bail Bonding and Brooke’s Bonding were approved to post Rivers’ bond and were asked to come to court to sign an order that specifies bond conditions and lays out who pays.

More: ‘Path of … bad behavior’: A look at child domestic violence cases in Tennessee

More: Know the signs: How to be more aware of when a relationship can turn deadly

The order is two pages long. The first page includes the conditions of Rivers’ release. It says he must be fitted with electronic monitoring by a company called Tracking Solutions, cannot leave Davidson County and must be released from jail to a representative of his bonding company between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The second page says the “defendant is responsible for all costs associated with electronic monitoring installation,” but does not specify any of the other conditions of Rivers’ bond.

Advertisement

Brooke Harlan, owner of Brooke’s Bail Bonding, said her court liaison — an employee of hers who makes many of the company’s court appearances — was only shown the second page of the order and was not told about the first page.

In response, Criminal Court Clerk Howard Gentry said, “It’s just not our responsibility to make somebody read something.”

Sloss, the chief deputy clerk, added, “It’s not like they’re not used to seeing these things all the time.”

Release gone wrong: ‘Someone in our office made a mistake’

Harlan said that one of her bonding agents posted Rivers’ bond at the State Warrant and Bond Office in the downtown jail at 1:30 p.m. on June 24. The bonding agent was not told the conditions of Rivers’ release when the bond was posted, which Harlan said is standard practice.

Rivers was released from the Maximum Correctional Center on Harding Place at 4:05 p.m. on June 24, five minutes after his court order required, according to Davidson County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Jon Adams. Also in violation of the order, Rivers was released on his own rather than to a representative of the bonding company, Adams said.

Advertisement

Sloss said Rivers was let out that way because his office failed to communicate the conditions of Rivers’ release with the Sheriff’s Office.

“Someone in our office made a mistake,” Sloss said. “When the release was sent to the sheriff, it did not contain the conditions that were outlined in the order, especially the portion talking about the person needing to have a GPS tracking device. At the very least, a copy of the order should have been attached to the release.”

The Sheriff’s Office was sent “a second form with more information, but we did not receive that at the time of his release,” Adams said.

Harlan said she did not want to point fingers but that “there are a lot of clerical errors in the system.

“There’s flaws in the system that need to be reformed, for sure,” she said.

Advertisement

Sloss said the clerk’s office is working to implement a stopgap measure that will ask employees to confirm they have communicated with the Sheriff’s Office any conditions of the defendant’s release from jail.

“At the end of the day, I hope it doesn’t get lost in all the finger pointing that mistakes were made and a life was lost,” Gentry, the clerk, said. “And that’s what we’re struggling with on this side of the criminal justice system.”

The issues with Rivers’ GPS monitoring

Even though he was released to the street, Rivers called Brooke’s Bail Bonding at 4:36 p.m., Harlan said.

An agent from Brooke’s Bail Bonding picked up Rivers in the Harding Place area. Based on Harlan’s telling, because her company had still not seen the first page of the order from June 5, which included the conditions of Rivers’ bond, the company did not know which monitoring company he was supposed to visit.

So the bonding agent took Rivers to a newly formed company called Freedom Monitoring Services, records show.

Advertisement

Freedom Monitoring Services was created on June 17, one week before Rivers was released, the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website shows. The company was created by Nakeda Wilhoite, whom Harlan said is also an employee of Brooke’s Bail Bonding.

Through a person who answered a phone number associated with her, Wilhoite deferred all comments regarding the case to her attorney, who has not shared a comment with The Tennessean.

When Rivers arrived at Freedom Monitoring Services on the evening of June 24, the monitoring company did not have the court order with Rivers’ bond conditions because a court employee had sent them to Tracking Solutions. So after he was fitted with an ankle monitor, Rivers told Freedom Monitoring Services he would be leaving Tennessee for Vancleave, Mississippi, the report states.

Everything that went wrong became apparent on June 28.

That day, Tracking Solutions sent a report to an assistant district attorney saying that Rivers had not yet come to the office. The district attorney’s office then told the court Rivers was in violation of his bond conditions, and Rivers was ordered to show in court on July 2, according to a news release from trial administrator Pickett.

Advertisement

Freedom Monitoring Services received the court order with bond conditions for the first time that day, the company’s report states.

And Robert Johansen was contacted by voicemail and notified of Rivers release for the first time.

Freedom Monitoring contacted Rivers and told him to return to Nashville because of an issue with his monitor, the report said, noting that he arrived on June 29.

“A new monitor was placed, and tracking resumed back to normal,” the report from the monitoring company said.

Then Rivers left town again.

Advertisement

The first page of the bond order says the bonding company is “to surrender the defendant to the custody of the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office upon notification by the monitoring company of any violations of the Court Order.”

Rivers told Freedom Monitoring Services around midnight on July 2, the same day of his court hearing in Nashville, that he wouldn’t make it, the company’s report reads.

At about 10 a.m. on July 2, the battery on Rivers’ ankle monitor started to die. Harlan said several people were trying to contact him but were unable to reach him. They contacted his mother, but she said she had not seen him, according to Freedom Monitoring Services’ report.

On July 3, Freedom Monitoring Services’ report says that Rivers was last tracked on Beach Boulevard in Biloxi at an unspecified date and time. He did not answer any subsequent calls from Freedom Monitoring Services, the report said.

Blackburn issued a warrant for Rivers’ arrest on July 2. She ordered him held without bail because he violated bond conditions.

Advertisement

But it was too late for Lauren Johansen.

A failed system

The Debbie and Marie Domestic Violence Protection Act was passed by the Tennessee General Assembly to keep people like Lauren Johansen safe.

Named for Debbie Sisco and her daughter Marie Varsos, the legislation took effect on July 1 and requires some suspects accused of domestic abuse to wear GPS monitors as bail conditions before trial. Though monitoring is required, it does not appear that there are currently any standards or qualifications for GPS monitoring companies to work with the courts.

Sisco and Varsos were killed in Nashville by Varsos’ estranged husband in 2021. Before her death, Varsos reported her husband to police after he choked and held her at gunpoint. When he was released on bond after his arrest, he stalked her at her mother’s home before fatally shooting both women.

The law bearing the women’s names was meant to give domestic violence victims a measure of hope.

Advertisement

But Robert Johansen believes the system failed in his daughter’s case.

“We put our trust in the law enforcement system in Nashville, and they assured me that he was not going to be able to get out on bond, and if there’s any way there’s going to be a bond hearing, or he was going to make bond, they would let us know,” he said.

Although he received the voicemail notifying him of Rivers’ release on June 28, Robert Johansen didn’t have a chance to listen to it right away, he said, noting that the news came as a shock on July 1.

“I called Lauren immediately and she was still alive when I called her and told her … she already heard,” he said. “She was told he was getting an ankle monitor, and it turned into a real mess.”

Lauren was terrified when he talked to her about Rivers being released, Robert Johansen said. He and his family don’t know what happened to Lauren Johansen or how she ended up in the trunk of a car on July 3.

Advertisement

Last they knew, she was in her home with her sister and a friend on July 1.

“There’s no way to reconcile it,” Robert Johansen said of his daughter’s death.

Because Rivers’ ankle monitor was apparently dead at the time, Robert Johansen said authorities were only able to find Rivers and his daughter by using On Star tracking on her phone. By the time they found the location, Lauren Johansen was dead.

A cause of death has not been released. Mississippi officials told The Tennessean that autopsy records, especially those connected to homicide cases, aren’t considered public record in their state.

Remembering Lauren Johansen

Lauren Johansen wanted to become a nurse practitioner so she could take care of people. She also hoped to one day develop an animal rescue, her father said.

Advertisement

“My daughter was a genius. … She was so smart and was so wonderful,” Robert Johansen said. “And she had a heart of gold.”

And there are so many memories.

When Lauren was 2 years old, Robert Johansen said, he took her fishing off the family’s dock. The physician got a call from a hospital emergency room asking him to come in, threatening to ruin their day, he said. After speaking to medical personnel on the phone for about 10 minutes, Robert Johansen said he turned around and saw a smile light up his daughter’s face.

“She said, ‘Never mind, Daddy. I got my own fish,’” he recalled.

Lauren Johansen, he said, was an animal lover, rescuing animals throughout her life.

Advertisement

She took her dog, Bentley Jo, and cat, Marley, with her everywhere, and she even had a rescue horse she named Cocoa, her father said.

Evan Mealins is the justice reporter for The Tennessean. Contact him at emealins@gannett.com or follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @EvanMealins

Craig Shoup is a breaking news reporter for The Tennessean. Reach him by email at cshoup@gannett.com and on X @Craig_Shoup. To support his work, sign up for a digital subscription to www.tennessean.com.





Source link

Advertisement

Mississippi

Mississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for June 2, 2026

Published

on

Mississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for June 2, 2026


play

The Mississippi Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at June 2, 2026, results for each game:

Advertisement

Winning Mississippi Match 5 numbers from June 2 drawing

05-14-16-33-35

Check Mississippi Match 5 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Cash 3 numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 3-3-8, FB: 5

Evening: 6-9-5, FB: 7

Check Cash 3 payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Cash 4 numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 6-0-4-9, FB: 5

Evening: 2-8-1-0, FB: 7

Check Cash 4 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Cash Pop numbers from June 2 drawing

Midday: 08

Evening: 03

Advertisement

Check Cash Pop payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Story continues below gallery.

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize

Winnings of $599 or less can be claimed at any authorized Mississippi Lottery retailer.

Advertisement

Prizes between $600 and $99,999, may be claimed at the Mississippi Lottery Headquarters or by mail. Mississippi Lottery Winner Claim form, proper identification (ID) and the original ticket must be provided for all claims of $600 or more. If mailing, send required documentation to:

Mississippi Lottery Corporation

P.O. Box 321462

Flowood, MS

39232

Advertisement

If your prize is $100,000 or more, the claim must be made in person at the Mississippi Lottery headquarters. Please bring identification, such as a government-issued photo ID and a Social Security card to verify your identity. Winners of large prizes may also have the option of setting up electronic funds transfer (EFT) for direct deposits into a bank account.

Mississippi Lottery Headquarters

1080 River Oaks Drive, Bldg. B-100

Flowood, MS

39232

Advertisement

Mississippi Lottery prizes must be claimed within 180 days of the drawing date. For detailed instructions and necessary forms, please visit the Mississippi Lottery claim page.

When are the Mississippi Lottery drawings held?

  • Cash 3: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).
  • Cash 4: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).
  • Match 5: Daily at 9:30 p.m. CT.
  • Cash Pop: Daily at 2:30 p.m. (Midday) and 9:30 p.m. (Evening).

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Mississippi editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Continue Reading

Mississippi

Jackson mayor claims victory after water authority ruling. What he said

Published

on

Jackson mayor claims victory after water authority ruling. What he said


play

  • A federal judge issued a split ruling on a new state law creating the Metro Jackson Water Authority.
  • The judge blocked the new authority from taking substantive actions while Jackson’s water system is under federal oversight.
  • Jackson Mayor John Horhn claimed the ruling as a victory, validating the city’s concerns about a state takeover.
  • The judge did not strike down the law itself, leaving the question of future control of the water system unresolved.

Jackson Mayor John Horhn claimed victory in the city’s legal fight against Mississippi’s new Metro Jackson Water Authority, arguing a federal judge’s latest ruling validates Jackson’s concerns about state lawmakers trying to influence the future of the city’s water system.

During a press conference at City Hall Tuesday, June 2, Horhn pointed to U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate’s decision to block the authority from naming a president, entering lease agreements or taking other substantive actions while Jackson’s water and sewer systems remain under federal oversight.

Advertisement

“What we’re thankful of is that the judge seems to agree with us,” Horhn said. “House Bill 1677 appeared to try to subvert the authority of the federal court.”

The comments come one day after Wingate issued a split ruling on the controversial law. While the judge declined to block House Bill 1677 outright, he also barred the Metro Jackson Water Authority from taking operational action beyond seating board members while the federal court continues overseeing Jackson’s water and sewer systems.

But Wingate’s ruling did not strike down House Bill 1677. It was more of a split ruling.

The judge agreed with arguments made by the state, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and JXN Water that the law itself does not automatically transfer control of Jackson’s water and sewer systems because any future takeover remains subject to federal court approval.

Advertisement

That leaves open a question: If the law remains on the books, could the Metro Jackson Water Authority simply remain in place until federal oversight ends and then assume control of the systems?

Horhn was asked that question directly Tuesday.

In response, Horhn focused on portions of the ruling that prevent the authority from naming a president who would serve as a deputy to JXN Water leader and Interim Third-Party Manager Ted Henifin. Horhn also pointed to Wingate blocking movement on any lease agreements until the court decides how the eventual transition away from federal oversight should occur.

Advertisement

“Two major points of the judge’s ruling are that he enjoined the state and the authority if it does start taking action from being able to name a president who would become the second in command of JXN Water,” Horhn said. “The other thing is that he enjoined any action on a lease being entered into until such time as he has had a chance to deliberate and decide what the future path ought to be.”

Horhn’s answer suggested he believes the ruling leaves room for other options besides simply allowing House Bill 1677 to take effect once federal oversight ends.

“What the judge has said to us for a number of months is that he wants to see a transition plan,” Horhn said.

The mayor said city officials have already begun discussions with JXN Water about what that transition plan could look like.

Advertisement

“We have begun discussions with JXN Water to have meaningful conversations with them about putting such a transition plan forward,” Horhn said. “At this point, the actions of the city are focused on working with Jackson Water to try to come up with a transition plan that might be approved by the judge.”

Under existing court orders, JXN Water is expected to develop a formal transition plan that must ultimately be approved by Wingate.

When asked whether the city could pursue its own water authority rather than the state-created Metro Jackson Water Authority, Horhn pointed to existing Mississippi law allowing municipalities to create utility districts.

“For a number of years, there has been state statutory authority for municipalities to establish municipal utility districts,” Horhn said. “We have made that presentation before the judge, and as I understand it, he’s taking it under advisory.”

Horhn did not elaborate on whether the city is actively pursuing that option, but the comments suggest Jackson may continue advocating for alternatives to House Bill 1677 as discussions about a post-receivership transition continue.

Advertisement

Additionally, Horhn reiterated his long-standing position that Jackson should maintain majority control over any future governing body overseeing the city’s water and wastewater systems.

“We don’t mind participation and involvement by the state of Mississippi,” Horhn said. “But any future governance of the City of Jackson’s water and wastewater system must have the City of Jackson having the majority of control.”

Horhn said Jackson’s position has never been that the state should be excluded entirely.

“What I have said is that we don’t mind participation and involvement by the state of Mississippi,” Horhn said. “But any future governance of the City of Jackson’s water and wastewater system must have the City of Jackson having the majority of control on any future boards or authorities that would be created.”

Advertisement

Horhn said Jackson opposed House Bill 1677 because it would have allowed state and suburban appointees to outnumber city representatives on the authority’s governing board.

“We don’t mind if you want to have some involvement, but not control,” Horhn said.

The mayor also argued the legislation ignored concerns repeatedly raised by Jackson officials during the legislative process.

“House Bill 1677 was a classic example of the state not listening to the local interests of the City of Jackson,” Horhn said.

Overall, Wingate’s 22-page order on Monday, June 1, was something of a split decision. Jackson persuaded Wingate to freeze many of the authority’s powers, but the state successfully defended the law itself from being blocked outright. The larger question of who will ultimately control Jackson’s water system remains unresolved. For now, Wingate remains in the driver’s seat.

Advertisement

“The parties should all accept that this state statute cannot force this court’s hand, nor dictate the calendar of this litigation,” Wingate wrote.

Charlie Drape, the Jackson beat reporter, has covered the Jackson water crisis from its collapse in 2022 through the system’s ongoing recovery, including independent testing and other accountability reporting. You can contact him at cdrape@gannett.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

Mississippi

How SCOTUS Callais Ruling Erased a Mississippi Voting Rights Victory

Published

on

How SCOTUS Callais Ruling Erased a Mississippi Voting Rights Victory


In 2022, Dyamone White, then in her late 20s, filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that Black voters like her didn’t have a fair chance to elect justices to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Three years later, she won a significant victory. A federal judge ruled that Mississippi Supreme Court election districts violated the Voting Rights Act and that Black candidates who wanted to run for the state’s highest court were unlikely to succeed. U.S. District Court Judge Sharion Aycock instructed lawmakers to draw a new map to give Black voters more power, with court-ordered special elections to follow, likely this fall.

“WE WON,” White wrote in a social media post that day in August 2025. “This isn’t just a personal victory — it’s a win for every Mississippian who has waited too long for fair representation. I became a plaintiff because I refused to accept that our state’s highest court could exclude the very people it serves. Today, that changes.”

But that change still hasn’t happened — and a recent seismic ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court means it may never happen.

Advertisement

In late April, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that dramatically weakened the Voting Rights Act, making it much harder for racial minorities to win voting discrimination lawsuits.

The decision further intensified a mid-decade redistricting war that’s been spreading across the country ahead of the congressional elections in the fall. But the decision affects politics beyond the federal level. The now-upended court battle about Mississippi’s judicial elections will serve as an early test of whether voting rights plaintiffs can still mount a convincing case in some circumstances.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court vacated Aycock’s ruling from last year after the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the Callais decision had dramatically changed the legal landscape.

That removed the state’s obligation to draw a new court map. It also eliminated the possibility that the state would hold special elections for its Supreme Court seats this fall, ending Black voters’ hope that 2026 may yield fairer representation at the top of the state’s judiciary. The case will now head back to Aycock’s court for new arguments under the higher standard created by the Callais decision.

The plaintiffs still see a path forward to win new maps. Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center argue on behalf of White and her fellow plaintiffs that they can still prevail under that new standard.

Advertisement

Looking to the court battles ahead, White is also looking back. She is from the tiny town of Edwards, a rural community near the state’s capital city region, and she recites its history of Black resistance to oppression, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement and beyond.

“It’s an area that is resilient,” White said. “The people I grew up around, they were all fighters.”

Dyamone White with Reuben Anderson, the first Black justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court, in 2024.

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, was a key tool in dismantling the Jim Crow regime of White supremacy that blocked Black residents from ballot box access in Mississippi and across the South.

Among other provisions, the law prohibited states from diluting the voting power of racial minorities and required that those voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing.

Advertisement

So, with Callais decided, what’s changed?

When plaintiffs filed suit over the Mississippi Supreme Court voting districts in 2022, they had to show a violation of the law only by pointing to discriminatory effects of the voting districts in use, regardless of what the original architects of those districts may have intended.

Those effects? Black people make up about 38% of Mississippi’s population, but the state has just one Black justice currently sitting on its nine-member Supreme Court. Only four Black justices have ever been on the court, all serving since 1985 and never more than one at a time. All four first reached the court through a gubernatorial appointment to fill a vacancy.

That has meant very little Black representation on a body that interprets state laws and the state constitution, hears appeals in criminal and civil cases and has some control over the operations of lower courts.

With no need to delve into the intention of the legislators who created the current districts in the late 1980s, Aycock, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Mississippi Supreme Court districts as drawn have the effect of diluting Black voting power, violating the Voting Rights Act.

Advertisement

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the Callais case, however, sets a higher standard. A Voting Rights Act violation may now be found “only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

Legal experts have said that proving intentional discrimination is challenging — made even more difficult by the Alito opinion’s endorsement of partisan gerrymandering as a legitimate purpose of redistricting. The conservative justice wrote that states can now defend themselves against race dilution claims by arguing that Black districts are being eliminated not because of racist motivations but partisan ones since Black voters have typically supported Democratic candidates.

States like Louisiana and Tennessee have moved to quickly eliminate Black-majority Congressional districts. They will likely defend their new maps as partisan gerrymanders, not racially motivated ones.

“It’s going to be just lightning-strike rare for a Voting Rights Act claim to work where partisanship is permitted,” said Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official and election law expert who teaches at Loyola Marymount University Law School.

However, Mississippi Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan, and that may make a meaningful difference in the current litigation, said Amir Badat, a civil rights lawyer who has argued a number of voting rights claims in the state.

Advertisement

Badat said that even under Callais, lawmakers may not be able to hide behind partisan intent to shield themselves from judicial scrutiny.

“In this kind of narrow circumstance, you still have viable Section 2 claims,” said Badat, referencing the section of the Voting Rights Act that bans discriminatory election practices.

Levitt agrees that voting rights cases in nonpartisan elections may still be possible to win under Callais, though he added that the overall impact of the decision likely makes even those cases quite difficult.

While the legal standard may have changed, White, the lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, says one thing has not: The reality faced by Black voters who want to see a fair state Supreme Court map.

“We laid out the facts of representation in the state. You can’t deny that, “ White said. “We can go back to court again, and the facts remain the same. Representation is not equal.”

Advertisement

This article was produced in collaboration with Bolts, a nonprofit publication that covers criminal justice and voting rights in local governments; sign up for their newsletter.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending