Introduction

In Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Evan Milligan, et al. and Marcus Caster, et al., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether Alabama's 2022 congressional districting plan violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The plaintiffs contended that the plan resulted in racial gerrymandering, diluting the voting strength of Black Alabamians in violation of the VRA's provisions against voting discrimination based on race.

The key issues revolved around the adherence to the framework established in THORNBURG v. GINGLES, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), and the state's attempt to introduce a "race-neutral benchmark" for evaluating districting plans. The Court's decision reaffirmed longstanding precedents while rejecting Alabama's novel approach to statutory interpretation under the VRA.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction against Alabama's HB1 districting map, determining that the map likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, emphasizing that Alabama failed to satisfy the three preconditions of the Gingles framework:

1. The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.
2. The minority group must be politically cohesive.
3. The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat the minority's preferred candidates.

The Court found that Alabama did not meet these preconditions, particularly highlighting that while an additional majority-Black district was possible, the existing map's configuration likely resulted in vote dilution against Black voters. Moreover, the Court dismissed Alabama's "race-neutral benchmark" theory, maintaining that the assessment should focus on whether the political process is equally open, as per existing precedents.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision heavily relied on the landmark case THORNBURG v. GINGLES, which established the three-pronged test for evaluating §2 claims under the VRA. The Court reiterated that:

• Minority groups must be sufficiently large and geographically compact.
• Political cohesiveness among the minority group is essential.
• Majority voting blocs can effectively dilute minority voting strength.

Additionally, the Court referenced subsequent cases such as SHAW v. RENO, MILLER v. JOHNSON, and BUSH v. VERA, which underscored the importance of traditional districting principles like compactness and contiguity in avoiding racial gerrymandering.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on rejecting Alabama's attempt to redefine the evaluative framework for §2 claims by introducing a race-neutral benchmark. The majority emphasized that:

• §2 requires assessing whether the political process is equally open to minority voters, not comparing it to an average of race-neutral maps.
• Adopting the race-neutral benchmark would blur the clear standards established in Gingles and related cases.
• Traditional districting criteria already impose meaningful constraints that prevent §2 from becoming a tool for enforcing racial proportionality.

The Court also addressed the dissent's arguments, clarifying that §2 does apply to single-member districts and that any reinterpretation undermines constitutional protections against racial classifications.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the robustness of the Gingles framework in evaluating racial gerrymandering claims. By rejecting Alabama's race-neutral benchmark, the Court upholds the existing method of focusing on whether the political process genuinely allows minority groups to elect representatives of their choice. This decision signals that states cannot sidestep established precedents by introducing novel interpretative methods.

Future cases involving racial gerrymandering will likely continue to adhere strictly to the Gingles criteria, ensuring that any districting plan is scrutinized based on established standards rather than newly proposed benchmarks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§2 of the Voting Rights Act

§2 of the VRA prohibits any voting practice that results in the denial or abridgment of voters' rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It aims to ensure that minority groups have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor a particular group or party. Racial gerrymandering specifically involves drawing districts in a way that dilutes the voting power of minority groups.

Race-Neutral Benchmark

Alabama proposed using a "race-neutral benchmark," which involves comparing the state's districting plan to a multitude of hypothetical, race-neutral maps generated by computer algorithms. The idea was to determine if the enacted map adversely affected minority voters compared to these neutral alternatives. The Court rejected this approach, maintaining that the evaluation should focus on whether the political processes are equally open to minority groups.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Milligan reaffirms the enduring significance of the Gingles framework in safeguarding against racial discrimination in electoral districting. By dismissing Alabama's attempt to introduce a race-neutral benchmark, the Court underscored the necessity of adhering to established legal standards that focus on the fairness and openness of the political process for minority voters. This judgment not only upholds the protections offered by the VRA but also sets a clear precedent for future challenges to racially discriminatory districting plans.

As the Voting Rights Act continues to evolve, this decision serves as a testament to the Court's commitment to ensuring that all citizens, regardless of race, have an equitable opportunity to influence their government through fair representation.