What does the Supreme Court’s Alabama gerrymandering decision mean?

Written by Eric Revell, Countable News

What’s the story?

• The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in a pair of cases related to redistricting in Alabama that may signal a change in the high court’s precedents related to allegations of racial gerrymandering. 
• The cases, known as Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster, concerned claims that Alabama’s new congressional maps dilute the voting power of black voters in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Alabama has seven congressional districts after the latest apportionment and the plaintiffs contend that the legislature illegally packed many of the state’s black voters into a single majority-minority district. They argue that a second majority-minority district is needed to avoid diluting the voting power of the state’s black voters. The 2020 Census found that 12.4% of Alabamians identify as black alone, while another 10.2% identify as two or more races.
• In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court put on hold a lower court ruling that found the map was an illegal racial gerrymander and would’ve blocked Alabama’s map from being implemented ― thus allowing the map to remain in effect for the upcoming elections. The Court also agreed to hear the cases sometime during its upcoming term this fall.
• Five of the Court’s conservatives were in favor of reversing the lower court ruling and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Samuel Alito. He argued that the precedent set by the Court in a case known as Purcell precludes federal courts from issuing injunctions blocking state election laws in the period leading up to an election, and that “even heroic efforts [by election officials] likely would not be enough to avoid chaos and confusion.” Alabama’s primary is May 24th and its primary runoff is June 21st.
• The Court’s three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision, with Justice Elena Kagan writing an opinion that was joined by her two liberal colleagues. Kagan argued that the district court properly applied the Court’s precedents regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that siding with the state of Alabama “forces black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear vote dilution.”
• Roberts authored his own dissent and didn’t concur with Kagan’s opinion. In his dissent, the chief justice signaled that while he believes the district court properly applied the law and its decision should govern the upcoming elections in Alabama there is also uncertainty surrounding what litigants must demonstrate for a successful vote dilution claim under the Gingles precedent. Roberts wrote that “while the District Court cannot be faulted for its application of Gingles, it is fair to say that Gingles and its progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim.”

What is the Gingles test?

• The Supreme Court issued a decision in a case known as Thornburg v. Gingles in 1986 which held that North Carolina unlawfully diluted black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice because of racial gerrymandering. In the Gingles decision, the Court established a three-part test for proving vote dilution:

1. The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;
2. The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive; and
3. The minority group must be able to show that the majority votes as a sufficient bloc to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate absent unusual circumstances.

(Photo Credit: Elkahnah Tisdale - Boston Centinel via Wikimedia / Public Domain)