Introduction

John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Evan Milligan, et al. is a landmark case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 7, 2022. The core issue in this case revolves around Alabama's congressional redistricting plan, which was challenged for allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diluting the voting power of Black Alabamians. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of the contested districting plan in the upcoming 2022 elections. The Supreme Court's decision to stay the District Court's injunction has significant implications for election law and the application of the Purcell Principle.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, granted the stay requested by Alabama, thereby suspending the District Court's preliminary injunction that mandated redrawing Alabama's congressional districts. The judgment treated two applications: one as a jurisdictional statement and the other as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court emphasized that the stay was not a ruling on the merits of the case but a procedural step to allow for orderly deliberation. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the stay and elaborated on the application of the Purcell Principle. Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the stay undermined established voting rights protections.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cites the Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) precedent, which established that federal courts should refrain from enjoining state election laws close to an election to avoid disrupting the electoral process. Additionally, the case references THORNBURG v. GINGLES, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), which sets the framework for evaluating vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the VRA. Other significant cases include Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) and various subsequent cases that have shaped the understanding of election law and judicial intervention.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence delves into the application of the Purcell Principle, asserting that federal courts should not interfere with state election laws during the critical pre-election period. The rationale is to maintain election integrity and prevent chaos that could arise from last-minute judicial modifications. The Court evaluated Alabama's request for a stay by considering the likelihood of success on the merits and the potential for irreparable harm, ultimately finding that the Purcell Principle necessitated the stay. The majority opinion emphasized that the District Court's injunction was issued too close to the election to allow for orderly implementation of new districting maps.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan argued that the stay impeded established voting rights protections and that the District Court had adequately addressed potential vote dilution issues. They contended that the Purcell Principle should not override the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, especially when substantial evidence indicating vote dilution was presented.

Impact

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the stay reinforces the Purcell Principle, underscoring the judiciary's role in preserving the integrity of the electoral process by avoiding late-stage interventions in election laws. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases where state election laws are challenged close to election dates, emphasizing the necessity for clear and settled election rules. Additionally, it highlights the delicate balance between upholding voting rights and ensuring that elections proceed without undue disruption.

For states, this decision may necessitate earlier and more proactive measures in redistricting to avoid last-minute legal challenges that could jeopardize the implementation of their election laws. For advocates of voting rights, the judgment underscores the importance of clear and compelling evidence when challenging districting plans but also demonstrates the courts' reluctance to intervene during critical electoral periods.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Purcell Principle

Originating from the Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Purcell Principle advises federal courts to refrain from issuing injunctions that would significantly alter state election laws shortly before an election. The goal is to prevent confusion, logistical challenges, and potential disenfranchisement of voters due to last-minute changes.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)

Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures that result in the dilution of the voting strength of racial or ethnic minority groups. To establish a violation under Section 2, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they belong to a sufficiently large and geographically compact minority group, that the group is politically cohesive, and that the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates.

Vote Dilution

Vote dilution occurs when the voting power of a minority group is weakened, often through practices like "packing" (concentrating minority voters into a single district to reduce their influence in other districts) or "cracking" (dispersing minority voters across many districts to prevent them from achieving a majority in any).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Merrill v. Milligan serves as a reaffirmation of the Purcell Principle, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the electoral process's integrity by limiting last-minute judicial interventions. While the judgment prioritizes the logistical aspects of conducting fair elections, it also sparks ongoing debates about the balance between upholding voting rights and maintaining election stability. Moving forward, this case underscores the necessity for states to meticulously design and implement districting plans well in advance of elections to mitigate legal challenges and ensure equitable representation.