Federal Court Ruling Legislatative Maps
Federal Court Ruling Legislatative Maps
Federal Court Ruling Legislatative Maps
v.
Defendant.
ORDER
the remedial congressional plan (“2023 Remedial Congressional Plan”). Doc. No.
1All citations are to the electronic docket unless otherwise noted, and all page numbers
cited herein are those imprinted by the Court’s docketing software.
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 15
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that Georgia’s congressional electoral plan
passed by the General Assembly (SB 2EX, henceforth the “2021 Enacted
Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“Section 2”). This Court conducted a bench
trial on Plaintiffs’ claims as well as the claims from two related cases alleging
Section 2 violations in relation to Georgia’s 2021 enacted State House and Senate
electoral plans.2 Following the trial, this Court issued a consolidated Opinion and
and Conclusions of Law. Doc. No. [286] (“October 26, 2023 Order”). Ultimately,
this Court concluded that the 2021 Enacted Congressional Plan violated Section
2 in the western part of metro Atlanta. To remedy the statutory violation, the
in the west-metro Atlanta area. Id. at 509. The Court also stated that “the State
adopting substitute measures. Id. (citing Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 539–40
(1978)). During a special session beginning November 29, 2023, the General
Governor Brian Kemp signed the bill into law. Doc. No. [312].
[317]), Defendant responded (Doc. No. [327]), and Plaintiffs replied (Doc. No.
[328]). This Court conducted a hearing on the objections and the response thereto
on December 20, 2023. Doc. No. [329]. With this background and the Parties’
arguments in mind, the Court resolves Plaintiffs’ objections to the 2023 Remedial
II. OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs argue that the Georgia legislature not only violated the Court’s
Order but also generated a remedial plan that “independently” violates Section
2 by (1) moving voters from outside of the “explicitly defined vote dilution area
3
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 4 of 15
encompassing 2021 Congressional Districts (“2021 CDs”) 3, 6, 11, 13, and 14” into
the vote dilution of 50,000 Black voters from the “vote dilution area” (Doc. No.
reshuffling of Black voters rather than a remedy to the vote dilution identified by
the Court. Doc. No. [317], 3. To illustrate this argument, Plaintiffs point out that
issue here. Id. at 6–7. Plaintiffs further argue that the new plan breaks up 2021
CD 7, cutting the previous 57.81% minority citizen voting age population in this
despite the Court’s express instruction that the Georgia could not remedy the
the plan”. Id. (citing the October 26, 2023 Order at 509–10). The result, according
4
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 5 of 15
Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), and thereby was protected by the Voting Rights Act.
Id. at 14. Plaintiffs go on to argue that the evidence they have submitted in
that the Gingles preconditions as well as the totality of the circumstances are
In response, Defendant points out that the Court’s order required new
districts in specific regions, as opposed to specific districts. Doc. No. [327], 31–32.
new majority-Black district “somewhere else in the state.” Id. at 32. Defendant
nevertheless emphasizes that this prohibition does not require remedial districts
precisely or only in the districts specified by the Court following the liability
phase of the proceedings. Id. at 32–33. Furthermore, Defendant asserts that the
remedial districts were placed in the geographic areas specified by the Court. Id.
Plaintiffs complain of losing was a coalition district (i.e., districts where there are
of multiple racial minority groups who combine to elect the group’s candidate of
5
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 6 of 15
choice) and are not required by Section 2. Id. at 60. Therefore, according to
Defendant, the State has complied with this Court’s order and the elimination of
2021 CD 7 does not violate Section 2, which completes this Court’s inquiry.
The initial task before this Court is to determine whether the 2023 Remedial
Congressional Plan remedies the Section 2 violations identified in the October 26,
2023 Order through the creation of an additional congressional district in the area
to elect their candidate of choice. The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the new
plan must “completely remed[y] the prior dilution of minority voting strength
and fully provide[] equal opportunity for minority citizens to participate and to
elect candidates of their choice.” United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm’n, 850 F.2d
1433, 1437–38 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting S.REP. No 97-417, at 31 (1982)); see also
Dillard v. Crenshaw Cnty., 831 F.2d 246, 252–53 (11th Cir. 1987) (“This Court
cannot authorize an element of an election proposal that will not with certitude
“does not mean that a § 2 plaintiff has the right to be placed in a majority-minority
district once a violation of the statute is shown.” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 917
6
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 7 of 15
n.9 (1996). This is because the State retains broad discretion in drawing districts
to comply with the mandate of Section 2. Id. (citing Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S.
146, 156–57 (1993); Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 32–37 (1993)).
violated this Court’s order, which stated, “[t]he State cannot remedy the Section 2
elsewhere in the plans.” Doc. No. [286], 509–10. Similarly, the Court must
IV. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ arguments: that because the October 26, 2023 Order listed specific
congressional districts where it found that Plaintiffs had proven vote dilution—
referred to now by Plaintiffs as the “vote dilution area”—the State was confined
7
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 8 of 15
view. 3 Second, and more importantly, the Court derived its delineation of
specific districts from the list of districts Plaintiffs challenged in the lawsuit. The
Court did not, and could not, confine the General Assembly to working only
Cf. Shaw, 517 U.S. at 917 n.9 (“States retain broad discretion in drawing districts
to comply with the mandate of § 2.”). Rather, the Court set forth geographic
It is certainly true that the State cannot remedy vote dilution by creating a
safe majority-Black district somewhere else in the State. See Shaw, 517 U.S. at 917.
In identifying the geographic area in which vote dilution was found, the Court
listed 2021 CDs 3, 6, 11, 13, and 14. Doc. No. [286], 514. Those districts are shown
3Plaintiffs cite Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 917 (1996) in which the Supreme Court held,
“[i]f a § 2 violation is proved for particular areas . . . [t]he vote-dilution injuries suffered
by these persons are not remedied by creating a safe majority-[B]lack district
somewhere else in the state.” As discussed below, the geographic discrepancy in Shaw
was actually “somewhere else in the state,” which is not the situation in this case. Shaw,
517 U.S. at 917.
8
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 9 of 15
Atlanta . . ., located in portions of Cobb, Douglas, and Fulton Counties.” Doc. No.
[327-1], 8. As can be seen from the 2023 Remedial Congressional Plan below, 2023
9
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 10 of 15
CD 6 falls squarely within the geographic area of state specified by the Court’s
order:
10
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 11 of 15
Thus, the instant case is not remotely akin to what the Shaw
Court described as “somewhere else in the state.” Shaw, 517 U.S. at 917.
Plaintiffs’ objections contain the overarching theme that the 2023 Remedial
Plans do not cure vote dilution for enough Black voters in the specified area.
remedy” will result in some members of the minority group residing outside of
the minority-controlled districts. McGhee v. Granville Cnty., 860 F.2d 110, 119
(4th Cir. 1988). Thus, Plaintiffs’ only remaining argument is that the location of
put it more starkly, Plaintiffs contend that their illustrative plan is a better
remedy than the State’s 2023 Remedial Congressional Plan. Because this Court
cannot intrude upon the domain of the General Assembly, however, it declines
plan preferred by Plaintiffs and crown the illustrative plan the winner. See Allen
v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 21 (2023) (“The District Court . . . did not have to conduct
a beauty contest between plaintiffs’ maps and the State’s.”) (quoting Singleton v.
11
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 12 of 15
presume that the Court’s instruction to the State to refrain from eliminating
however, this case has been about Black voters – as necessitated by Plaintiffs’
Complaint. See generally Doc. Nos. [1] (Original Complaint); [120] (Amended
Gingles precondition, has pertained to Black voters. Doc. No. [286], 203-205. This
Court has made no finding that Black voters in Georgia politically join with
another minority group or groups and that white voters vote as a bloc to defeat
the candidate of choice of that minority coalition. Therefore, the Court’s reference
to “minority opportunity districts” in the October 26, 2023 Order could not refer
2 claim, Plaintiffs would have to satisfy the same standard they did with respect
to the 2021 Enacted Congressional Plan, i.e., demonstrate the existence of the
12
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 13 of 15
and white bloc voting) as well as show under the “totality of circumstances, that
the political process is not equally open to minority voters.” Milligan, 143 S. Ct.
at 1503 (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45–46). Notably, Plaintiffs offer evidence to
support this new claim for the first time in conjunction with their objections. Doc.
groups at the remedial stage of their case—which up until now has involved only
Black voters. This is the type of challenge to a remedial districting plan that
Carolina, 283 F. Supp. 3d 410, 427 (M.D.N.C.), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 138 S.
Ct. 2548 (2018). Accordingly, the Court declines to decide the merits of Plaintiffs’
4The Court will not opine on the legal and factual issues presented in Plaintiffs’ new
Section 2 claim: whether Section 2 protects coalition districts and if there is an
evidentiary basis for Plaintiffs’ Section 2 claim of a coalition district around the area of
13
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 14 of 15
As the Court recognized in its October 26, 2023 Order, “redistricting and
should make every effort not to preempt.” Doc. No. [294], 509. Here, the
committee and floor debate transcripts make clear that the General Assembly
protected the majority party (i.e., the Republican Party) as much as possible. Doc.
Nos. [327-6], Tr. 9:3–6; [327-9], Tr. 9:3–5. However, redistricting decisions by a
legislative body with an eye toward securing partisan advantage does not alone
violate Section 2. See Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2501
(2019). In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly stated that federal judges have
no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties,
2021 CD 7. The Court acknowledges that it cannot approve a remedial plan with a
known Section 2 violation. Cf. Dallas Cnty. Comm’n, 850 F.2d at 1437 (“It is clear that
any proposal to remedy a Section 2 violation must itself conform with Section 2.”
(quoting Dillard, 831 F.2d at 249)). However, based on the evidence in the record in this
case, the Court cannot say that a Section 2 violation exists in the 2023 Remedial
Congressional Plan. The Court makes clear that it is not indicating whether such claim
could be supported after full factual development and presentation of evidence post-
discovery. Rather, the Court finds that such new Section 2 claim is better suited for a
separate case, not as part of the remedial proceedings at issue in this Order. See
Covington, 283 F.Supp.3d at 427 (“[S]ome challenges to a remedial districting plan . . .
demand development of significant new evidence and therefore [are] more
appropriately addressed in a separate proceeding.”).
14
Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 334 Filed 12/28/23 Page 15 of 15
given the lack of constitutional authority and the absence of legal standards to
direct such decisions. Id. at 2507; see also Seastrunk v. Burns, 772 F.2d 143, 151
(5th Cir. 1985) (“It is the legislature’s function to make decisions of basic political
policy. Thus, even where a legislative choice of policy is perceived to have been
unwise, or simply not the optimum choice, absent a choice that is either
unconstitutional or otherwise illegal under federal law, federal courts must defer
V. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this
the region of the State where vote dilution was found. The Court further finds
that the elimination of 2021 CD 7 did not violate the October 26, 2023 Order.
Finally, the Court declines to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ new Section 2 claim based on
15