Georgia v. Ashcroft, Attorney General
156 L. Ed. 2d 428, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5012, 539 U.S. 461 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the determination of whether a redistricting plan is retrogressive requires a statewide, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of the minority group's effective exercise of the electoral franchise, considering not only the ability to elect candidates of choice but also the group's opportunity to participate in the political process through influence and coalition districts.
Facts:
- Following the 2000 census, the Democratic-controlled Georgia General Assembly began redrawing its State Senate districts.
- The Democratic leadership, including members of the Senate Black Caucus, sought to maintain the number of majority-minority districts while also increasing the number of Democratic seats statewide.
- Key black legislators, including Senator Robert Brown, believed that 'packing' black voters into districts with excessively high minority populations wasted votes and diminished their overall political power.
- The proposed 2001 plan was designed to 'unpack' several heavily concentrated majority-black districts to spread black voters into new 'influence' or 'coalition' districts.
- The plan decreased the black voting age population in three existing majority-minority districts (Districts 2, 12, and 26), lowering their percentages to just over 50%.
- Simultaneously, the plan increased the total number of majority-black voting age population districts by one and increased the number of districts with a black voting age population between 30% and 50% by five.
- The plan was passed with the overwhelming support of black legislators in both the Georgia House and Senate, whose votes were necessary for its passage.
Procedural Posture:
- Georgia filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment for preclearance of its 2001 State Senate redistricting plan.
- The United States Attorney General intervened to oppose preclearance, arguing the plan was retrogressive in three specific districts.
- The District Court granted a motion to intervene to four African-American citizens who challenged two additional districts.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court denied preclearance, holding that Georgia had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan would not have a retrogressive effect.
- Georgia filed a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state redistricting plan result in retrogression under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act if it decreases the black voting age population in some majority-minority districts in order to create more 'influence' districts where black voters can play a substantial, if not decisive, role in elections?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. A state redistricting plan does not cause retrogression under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act simply because it reduces minority concentrations in some districts, so long as it preserves or enhances the minority's overall effective exercise of the electoral franchise on a statewide basis. The inquiry into retrogression must encompass the entire plan and consider the totality of the circumstances. This analysis is not limited to the comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice; it must also account for the creation of 'influence' and 'coalition' districts, where minorities can play a substantial role in the political process. Section 5 gives states the flexibility to choose a strategy of creating more districts where minority voters have a realistic opportunity to influence outcomes over a strategy of concentrating minority voters into fewer, safer districts. The District Court erred by focusing too narrowly on the three districts with decreased black voting age populations and failing to weigh the offsetting gains in other districts across the state.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. The majority's standard replaces the core § 5 protection of electing a candidate of choice with an unadministrable and amorphous concept of 'influence.' This redefinition undermines the statute's purpose by allowing states to diminish concrete minority voting power in exchange for a speculative political sway that cannot be reliably measured. A state seeking to move from majority-minority districts to coalition districts bears the burden of proving that such coalitions are a real prospect, based on evidence of low racial polarization and high white crossover voting. The District Court correctly found that Georgia failed to meet this evidentiary burden, as it presented no competent evidence on racial polarization in the affected districts. The District Court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and should have been upheld.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
I concur with the majority's application of existing § 5 precedents but write separately to note the fundamental discord between § 5 and the Equal Protection Clause. Under our jurisprudence, the race-conscious districting that seems necessary to satisfy § 5's non-retrogression standard could be deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment. This inconsistency, where conduct is encouraged by one legal standard and condemned by another, represents a serious flaw in our voting rights law that should be confronted in a future case.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I join the Court's opinion because it is fully consistent with our § 5 precedents, while adhering to the views I previously expressed in Holder v. Hall, which questioned the judicial interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.
Analysis:
Georgia v. Ashcroft significantly broadened the § 5 retrogression analysis, shifting it from a rigid, district-by-district comparison of minority electoral success to a holistic, statewide evaluation of overall political influence. This decision provides states with greater flexibility, validating the strategy of 'unpacking' safe majority-minority districts to create more 'influence' or 'coalitional' districts. The ruling empowers state legislatures and political parties to argue that such strategies enhance, rather than diminish, minority political power, making § 5 challenges more complex and fact-intensive. The dissent's criticism highlights the central tension: whether this flexibility will genuinely empower minority groups or simply provide cover for partisan gerrymanders that dilute minority voting strength.
Unlock the full brief for Georgia v. Ashcroft, Attorney General