A federal magistrate has decided to allow the NAACP to update its 2023 suit against the City of Abbeville.
The ruling, which you can read for yourself by scrolling down, was handed down last week.
In it, U.S. Magistrate David Ayo considers the question of whether the civil rights organization could update its suit against the city with new claims that arose last year when the city's council adopted district maps.
Here are some of our stories about that situation and this suit:
Abbeville council advances redistricting talks, civil rights ...
New Abbeville redistricting map approved
Tensions rise in Abbeville over redistricting map
Abbeville City Council sued over alleged voter ...
Lawsuit claims Abbeville's district maps denies equal ...
Most recently, the NAACP sought to update the old lawsuit with a new claim The instant case arises out of Plaintiff’s contention that the City drew new districts that "packed" black voters into a single district. The city alleged that they should have included that claim in the original lawsuit, but the plaintiffs said that "the gerrymandering claim sought to be asserted in the proposed Supplemental Complaint could not have been brought in the original Complaint since it arises out of the new map and the not map at issue in the original Complaint," the Court wrote.
The Court decided that the NAACP's proposed amendment is proper, would cause no undue delay and wouldn't cause undue prejudice to the city.
"On the contrary, proceeding via supplemental complaint is more efficient than having Plaintiff file an entirely new action. While Plaintiff concedes that its One-Person, One-Vote claim was mooted as a result of the City’s enactment of a new map, this matter has not been rendered moot and, to state the obvious, has not been dismissed. Thus, the filing of a new action by Plaintiff would obligate Plaintiff to “file written notice of any related civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding," the Court wrote.
If that happened, they'd have to consolidate the two actions, and then it might be assigned to new judges and that would cause delay, the Court wrote.
"This Court further finds that Plaintiff is not acting in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Plaintiff was prompt in seeking leave to supplement after the enactment of the new map and any delay can be attributed to the undersigned in ruling on the propriety of the proposed supplementation. The nature of this case and the relief sought are necessarily time sensitive given future elections, which was not lost on Plaintiff," the Court wrote.
The city was given 30 days to file responsive pleadings.
Here's the ruling:
