Supreme Court Upholds Purcell Principle in Merrill v. Milligan, Maintaining Alabama's Congressional Map for 2022 Elections

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Evan Milligan, et al., addressed a pivotal issue concerning Alabama's congressional redistricting plan. The plaintiffs, representing Black Alabamians, argued that the state's congressional districts diluted their voting power, thereby violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The core issue centered around whether Alabama's redistricting effectively minimized Black voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates by not creating sufficient majority-minority districts. This case not only scrutinizes the application of the VRA but also reaffirms the Supreme Court's stance on intervening in election laws close to election dates, known as the Purcell principle.

Summary of the Judgment

On February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction against Alabama's congressional map, allowing the state to proceed with its redistricting plan for the 2022 elections. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, authored a concurring opinion emphasizing that the stay does not reflect a decision on the merits but rather adheres to established precedents that discourage federal courts from enjoining state election laws close to elections. Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the stay undermines the Voting Rights Act and the thorough judicial process required to address vote dilution claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision prominently references Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), which established that federal courts should avoid enjoining state election laws close to an election to prevent chaos and confusion. Additionally, the Court leaned on precedents like Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010), and multiple cases related to the Purcell principle, such as Merrill v. People First of Alabama and Andino v. Middleton. The foundational case of THORNBURG v. GINGLES, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), outlining the criteria for vote dilution claims under the VRA, was also central to the legal discourse.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's majority focused on the application of the Purcell principle, which discourages changes to election laws shortly before an election to maintain electoral stability. Justice Kavanaugh argued that the stay was necessary to allow a full review of the merits without disrupting the upcoming elections. The Court reasoned that the District Court's injunction was premature given the proximity to the 2022 elections and that adhering to the Purcell principle was paramount to ensuring orderly electoral processes. The dissenting justices contended that this approach undermined the VRA by allowing potential vote dilution to persist unchallenged during critical elections.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in state election laws close to elections, thereby upholding the Purcell principle. It sets a precedent that minor changes or interventions by the judiciary in ongoing election matters are discouraged to prevent electoral disruptions. However, the dissent highlights a potential weakening of the VRA's enforcement mechanisms, suggesting that future cases may struggle to balance the Purcell principle with the need to protect minority voting rights. This decision may lead to increased litigations where courts are hesitant to grant injunctions, potentially leaving discriminatory practices unaddressed until after elections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Purcell Principle

The Purcell principle, derived from Purcell v. Gonzalez, advises courts to refrain from changing state election laws close to an election to avoid creating confusion and ensuring electoral integrity. It prioritizes the smooth conduct of elections over immediate judicial remedies in pending cases.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)

Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures that result in the dilution of minority voting strength. To establish a violation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a majority-minority district exists where the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to elect a representative of their choice, ensuring their political influence is not systematically diminished.

Majority-Minority Districts

These are electoral districts in which the majority of constituents are racial or ethnic minorities. The creation of such districts aims to provide minority voters with a greater opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, thereby enhancing their political power.

Shadow Docket

The shadow docket refers to the Supreme Court's use of emergency orders and summary decisions without full briefing and oral arguments. Critics argue that it allows the Court to make significant legal decisions without comprehensive scrutiny and transparency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Merrill v. Milligan underscores the enduring significance of the Purcell principle in American jurisprudence, particularly in the context of election-related litigation. By granting a stay on the District Court's injunction, the Court prioritized the stability and integrity of the upcoming elections over the immediate resolution of the vote dilution claims. While this maintains electoral order, it raises concerns about the timely protection of minority voting rights, as highlighted by the dissenting justices. Moving forward, this case exemplifies the delicate balance courts must maintain between upholding established principles and ensuring the fair application of voting rights legislation.