Senate advances judicial redistricting bill after heated debate and failed amendment

Senate lawmakers on Tuesday debated a judicial redistricting plan the Senate last advanced in 2024 and voted to pass the measure after a roll-call vote.

Senate Bill 2768 maps new circuit and chancery court districts that the sponsor said reflect population, caseload and geographic continuity; supporters said failing to pass a plan would leave redistricting to the state Supreme Court. The sponsor, Senator Wiggins, told colleagues the maps before the chamber “are the same one that we had last year” and that the House has since passed its own plan.

Opponents pressed for preserving current districts. Senator Derek Simmons offered an amendment to maintain existing chancery and circuit court districts and to avoid reductions in the number of trial judges; he argued many judges and local officials oppose changes and urged the chamber to leave districts “alone.” Supporters of the Senate plan said population shifts — including reduced population in parts of the Delta — and caseload data drove the proposed changes and that the plan reflected feedback collected from judges, clerks and the Administrative Office of Courts.

After extended debate and a roll-call on the amendment, the amendment did not carry. The Senate then voted for final passage; the clerk announced the final tally as 30 ayes and 18 nays and declared the bill passed.

The bill as passed lays out new county groupings and judge counts for circuit and chancery districts and includes related statutory cross-references. Supporters said the plan restores parity between caseload and judicial resources; opponents warned of compressed districts, particularly in some Delta counties, and asked for more data about caseload, population and the demographic composition of judges in affected districts.

Lawmakers said the bill will go to conference with the House to reconcile differences between the two chambers’ plans. If the legislature does not enact a plan, the constitution provides for the Supreme Court to reapportion judicial districts, a point senators cited as a reason to act this session.

The debate included repeated requests for more granular caseload and demographic data from the Administrative Office of Courts and requests that local circuit clerks and judges be consulted further before final implementation. The sponsor and committee chairs said they would continue work in conference and with affected stakeholders.

The measure now moves to conference with the House, which has already passed a different judicial plan.