Previous 5 / 112 Next

Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 5 Syllabus would “revise and reformulate the Gingles threshold inquiry that has been the baseline of [the Court’s] §2 jurisprudence” for decades. Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1, 16 (plurality opinion). Pp. 15–18. (2) Alabama argues that absent a benchmark, the Gingles framework ends up requiring the racial proportionality in districting that §2(b) forbids. The Court’s decisions implementing §2 demonstrate, however, that when properly applied, the Gingles framework itself imposes meaningful constraints on proportionality. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 633–634; Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 906; Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 957 (plurality opinion). In Shaw v. Reno, for example, the Court considered the permissibility of a second majorityminority district in North Carolina, which at the time had 12 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives and a 20% black voting age population. 509 U. S., at 633–634. Though North Carolina believed §2 required a second majority-minority district, the Court found North Carolina’s approach an impermissible racial gerrymander because the State had “concentrated a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions.” Id., at 647. The Court’s decisions in Bush and Shaw similarly declined to require additional majority-minority districts under §2 where those districts did not satisfy traditional districting principles. The Court recognizes that reapportionment remains primarily the duty and responsibility of the States, not the federal courts. Section 2 thus never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles and instead limits judicial intervention to “those instances of intensive racial politics” where the “excessive role [of race] in the electoral process . . . den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate.” S. Rep. No. 97–417, pp. 33–34. Pp. 18–22. (c) To apply its race-neutral benchmark in practice, Alabama would require plaintiffs to make at least three showings. First, Alabama would require §2 plaintiffs to show that the illustrative maps adduced for the first Gingles precondition are not based on race. Alabama would next graft onto §2 a requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate, at the totality of circumstances stage, that the State’s enacted plan contains fewer majority-minority districts than what an “average” raceneutral plan would contain. And finally, Alabama would have plaintiffs prove that any deviation between the State’s plan and a race-neutral plan is explainable “only” by race. The Court declines to adopt any of these novel requirements. Here, Alabama contends that because HB1 sufficiently “resembles” the “race-neutral” maps created by the State’s experts—all of which lack two majority-black districts—HB1 does not violate §2. Alabama’s reliance on the maps created by its experts Dr. Duchin and Dr. Imai is

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Allen v. Milligan

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether Alabama's 2021 congressional redistricting plan (HB1) — which created only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is 27% Black — violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength.

Alleged Acts: Alabama's population is approximately 27% Black. Following the 2020 census, the Alabama Legislature enacted HB1, a congressional redistricting plan containing seven districts, only one of which (District 7, held by Rep. Terri Sewell) had a majority-Black voting-age population. The remaining six districts were majority-white. A group of Alabama voters and organizations (led by Edward Allen and others, including the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries) sued Wes Allen, the Alabama Secretary of State, and other state officials, alleging that HB1 diluted Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by "packing" Black voters into a single district (CD7) and "cracking" the remaining Black population across the other six districts, preventing the creation of a second majority-Black or effective Black opportunity district. Plaintiffs argued that Alabama's Black population — concentrated in the Black Belt region and the Mobile area — was sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in two reasonably configured districts.

Procedural history: A three-judge district court, after considering a "massive factual record" including expert testimony, illustrative maps, and statistical analyses, held that plaintiffs had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their Section 2 claim and granted a preliminary injunction ordering the State to draw a new plan with a second Black opportunity district for the 2022 elections. The court found that all three Gingles preconditions were satisfied: (1) the Black population was sufficiently large and geographically compact; (2) Black voters were politically cohesive; and (3) white bloc voting was sufficient to defeat Black-preferred candidates.

Summary: In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held that Alabama's congressional redistricting plan likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court rejected the State's argument that any second majority-Black district would be non-compact. The Court held that the district court had properly evaluated plaintiffs' illustrative maps, which demonstrated that a second Black opportunity district could be drawn in a reasonably compact configuration connecting the Black Belt region with the Mobile area. The Court emphasized that the first Gingles precondition does not require "perfect" compactness or the most compact district possible — it requires only that the district be "reasonably configured." The Court noted that the State's own expert had acknowledged that the illustrative maps were "reasonably compact." The Court squarely rejected the State's argument for a "race-neutral benchmark" theory, which would have required courts to evaluate Section 2 claims by comparing the challenged plan to a hypothetical race-neutral plan rather than by applying the established Gingles framework. The Court held that this approach was inconsistent with Section 2's text and the Court's precedents. The Court rejected the State's argument that applying Section 2 to require a second majority-Black district would itself constitute an unconstitutional racial classification under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that Section 2 is a valid exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment and that its application does not require an unconstitutional sorting of voters by race. The Court distinguished Section 2 vote dilution claims from racial gerrymandering claims under Shaw v. Reno and Cooper v. Harris, noting that Section 2 claims address the dilution of minority voting strength, not the racial sorting of voters.

Conclusion: Allen v. Milligan is a landmark Voting Rights Act decision in which the Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's 2021 congressional redistricting plan — which created only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is 27% Black — likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. In a 5–4 decision, the Court reaffirmed the Gingles framework as the governing standard for Section 2 vote dilution claims and held that all three preconditions were satisfied: Alabama's Black population was sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a second reasonably configured district; Black voters were politically cohesive; and white bloc voting was sufficient to defeat Black-preferred candidates. The Court rejected the State's proposed "race-neutral benchmark" theory, holding that Section 2 applies straightforwardly and that the Gingles framework — not a hypothetical race-neutral comparison — governs such claims. The Court also held that the application of Section 2 to require a second majority-Black district did not constitute an unconstitutional racial classification under the Equal Protection Clause, distinguishing Section 2 vote dilution claims from racial gerrymandering claims under Shaw and Cooper. The decision was significant because it reaffirmed the continuing vitality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) had effectively gutted Section 5, and it rejected attempts by covered jurisdictions to narrow the scope of Section 2 through novel legal theories. The decision required Alabama to redraw its congressional map to include a second Black opportunity district and prompted similar redrawing in Louisiana, with ripple effects across other Southern states.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 8, 2023

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.890591

Longitude: -77.004745

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf

Primary Documents

Allen v. Milligan.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Allen v. Milligan

Primary Documents

Notifications