IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60133

JOSEPH THOMAS; VERNON AYERS; MELVIN LAWSON, 

 Plaintiffs–Appellees

v.

PHIL BRYANT, Governor of the State of Mississippi, all in the official 

capacities of their own offices and in their official capacities as members of 

the State Board of Election Commissioners; DELBERT HOSEMANN, 

Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi, all in the official capacities of 

their own offices and in their official capacities as members of the State 

Board of Election Commissioners, 

 Defendants–Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before DAVIS, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, prohibits

state and political subdivisions from redistricting “in a manner which results” 

in members of a protected class of racial and language minorities “hav[ing] less 

opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political 

process and to elect representatives of their choice.”1 Plaintiffs challenged the 

legislative boundaries for Mississippi State Senate District 22, arguing that 

 

1 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 19-60133

2

the district, as drawn in 2012, diluted African-American voting strength. 

Following a two-day bench trial, the district court concluded that the evidence 

established a § 2 violation under the standards set forth in Thornburg v.

Gingles.2 We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment declaring District 22 

violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The State’s appeal of the district 

court’s judgment granting injunctive relief is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

I. 

A.

At least once every decade, the State of Mississippi redraws its 

legislative boundaries based in part on the decennial census. In 2012, the 

Mississippi Legislature realigned the contours of Senate District 22 to stretch

over 100 miles, from north to south. The district then consisted of all or part 

of five counties in the Mississippi Delta—Bolivar, Humphreys, Sharkey, 

Washington, and Yazoo—as well as parts of one non-Delta county, Madison.3 

Since early times, concentrations of African Americans have occupied the Delta 

area, which has a unique history and character.4 

District 22 contains some very poor areas predominantly populated by 

African Americans. Based on the 2012 redistricting plan, the black voting age 

population (BVAP) in District 22 was 50.8%. In this district, almost 41.2% of 

African Americans lived in poverty; their median household income was

$23,741. But the district also contained some very wealthy areas, mainly in 

the southern portion of Madison County, inhabited primarily by white 

residents. The poverty rate for white residents in District 22 was 

approximately 8.8%; their median household income was $66,736. 

 

2 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

3 See APPENDIX for a depiction of Mississippi Senate District 22. 

4 The uniqueness of the Delta has been described in detail by our court and the district 

court. See Thomas v. Bryant, 919 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2019); Thomas v. Bryant, 366 F. 

Supp. 3d 786, 790–91 (S.D. Miss. 2019). 
No. 19-60133

3

Since 2003, Senate District 22 has been represented by Eugene Clark, 

who is white. The candidate, whether African-American or not, preferred by 

African-American voters has not occupied this office in that time.5 

B.

On July 9, 2018, three African-American voters of District 22, Joseph 

Thomas, Melvin Lawson, and Vernon Ayers, filed a complaint under § 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act (VRA) against Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, Secretary 

of State Delbert Hosemann, and Attorney General Jim Hood, who constitute 

the State Board of Election Commissioners (collectively, the “State”). Plaintiffs 

alleged that the boundary lines of District 22, as drawn under the 2012 

legislative redistricting plan, diluted African-American voting strength and 

deprived African-American voters of an equal opportunity to elect candidates 

of their choice. According to Plaintiffs, the Mississippi Legislature’s “addition 

of th[e] predominantly white areas from Madison County . . . limit[ed] the 

district’s black voting age population to the present level of 50.8%, which 

combine[d] with white bloc voting and lower African-American turnout . . . 

dilute[d] African-American voting strength in the district.” Plaintiffs 

contended that “[p]ast elections in Mississippi, particularly in District 22 and 

its surrounding area, have been marked by a clear pattern of racially polarized 

voting.” Consequently, as Plaintiffs averred, no African-American or AfricanAmerican-preferred candidate has represented District 22 in its current or 

previous form, including in 2015, when Plaintiff Thomas ran for the seat but 

lost, despite garnering a vast majority of African-American votes. 

In their complaint, Plaintiffs pointed out that while the State of 

Mississippi is at least 35% African-American in voting age population, only 

 

5 The record does not contain evidence of the district lines or the election results for 

any election earlier than 2003.
No. 19-60133

4

25% of the members of the Mississippi Senate are African-American. They 

maintained that though African Americans made up a majority of the voting 

age population in District 22, that majority lacked “real electoral opportunity” 

under Supreme Court precedent interpreting § 2 of the VRA. Plaintiffs 

contended that District 22 could be redrawn to cure the § 2 violation with 

changes to only one or two adjacent districts; that the resulting districts would 

be more compact than in the 2012 plan; and that the alteration would not 

create Voting Rights Act violations in any other districts. Plaintiffs therefore 

asked the district court to declare that the 2012 districting plan violated § 2 of 

the VRA and enjoin the State from conducting any future elections in District 

22—including the upcoming November 2019 election—under that plan. 

C.

The district court conducted a bench trial from February 6–7, 2019. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), the State had requested a district court of three

judges to hear the case,6 but the court found that provision inapplicable to a 

standalone § 2 statutory claim.

At trial, Plaintiffs provided demographic analyses and results from

elections in 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015, which showed that Clark (and whitepreferred candidates for statewide offices, e.g., Governor and Secretary of 

State) consistently beat out candidates preferred by African Americans in 

District 22. Utilizing ecological inference (EI), Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Maxwell 

Palmer,7 highlighted consistent patterns of bloc voting by white residents and 

lower election turnout of African Americans. Plaintiffs further proffered 

 

6 The State first raised this argument in late January 2019, on the eve of trial. The 

State’s answer, filed in August 2018, had acknowledged that the district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction. The State’s motion for summary judgment, filed in September 2018, did 

not discuss jurisdiction.

7 Dr. Palmer, a political science professor at Boston University, was qualified by the 

district court as an expert in data analysis pertaining to redistricting.
No. 19-60133

5

evidence about the bleak socioeconomic realities of African Americans in 

District 22. Plaintiff Thomas, who ran for state senate in 2015, and Plaintiff 

Lawson also testified about the lack of transportation options to assist AfricanAmerican voters in traveling to the polls to vote during odd-year elections. 

Plaintiffs’ other expert, William Cooper,8 presented the district court with 

three plans that would, in his opinion, increase the BVAP of District 22 while 

honoring traditional redistricting criteria.

On the other hand, the State’s expert, Dr. Peter Morrison, testified that 

African Americans have performed well in county and municipal races within 

District 22 and that African-American voters statewide have higher election 

turnout than white voters.9 The State argued that District 22, as then drawn, 

was already a majority-minority district, so no relief was warranted. 

Applying the familiar test set forth in Gingles, the district court 

determined that District 22, as drawn in 2012, did in fact violate § 2 of the 

VRA. On February 13, 2019, the district court issued an order preliminarily 

advising the Mississippi Legislature of its conclusion that District 22 did not 

afford African Americans “an equal opportunity to participate in the political 

processes and to elect candidates of their choice.” The district court noted that 

Plaintiffs had presented three different plans for redrawing District 22 that 

would remedy the § 2 violation, but the court acknowledged that the 

Mississippi Legislature was entitled to the first opportunity to redraw the 

district.

On February 16, 2019, the district court issued a lengthy opinion, 

denying the State’s laches defense and concluding that Plaintiffs had proven 

 

8 Mr. Cooper is a geographic information system (GIS) consultant who conducts 

computer mapping for redistricting plans; he was qualified as an expert in that field. 

9 Dr. Morrison, an applied demographer retired from the Rand Corporation, was 

qualified by the district court as an expert in that field.
No. 19-60133

6

by a preponderance of the evidence that the boundaries of Mississippi Senate 

District 22 violated § 2.10 The court, however, declined to order any specific 

relief “while the Mississippi Legislature consider[ed] whether to redraw the 

District and extend the qualification deadline.”11 

The State thereafter appealed the district court’s order and filed a 

motion for stay pending appeal in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), 

which provides appellate jurisdiction over a district court’s interlocutory order 

granting an injunction. 

On February 21, 2019, the district court conducted a teleconference,

joined by Secretary of State Hosemann; the parties “convinced the Court that 

no further hearings were necessary” regarding remedies.12 On February 26, 

2019, the State further informed the district court that the Mississippi 

Legislature “would take up the Court’s suggestion to redraw District 22 only if

the motions for stay were denied [at the district court] and in the Fifth 

Circuit.”13 On that same day, however, noting that the Mississippi Legislature 

had not redrawn the boundaries of District 22, the district court granted 

Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the qualification deadline from March 1, 2019 to 

March 15, 2019. The district court also redrew the boundaries of District 22. 

Specifically, the district court adopted Plaintiffs’ “Illustrative Plan 1,” which 

affected the boundaries of Districts 22 and 23. Finally, the district court issued 

a final judgment “resolv[ing] all of the claims and defenses in th[e] case” and 

rendering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against the State.14

 

10 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 810. 

11 Id.

12 ECF Dkt. No. 85 at 2.

13 Id.

14 Because the district court’s final judgment on February 26, 2019 varied from its 

interlocutory order, we dismissed the appeal of the interlocutory order as moot. Thomas v. 

Bryant, 755 F. App’x 421 (5th Cir. 2019).
No. 19-60133

7

D.

On February 27, 2019, the State filed a notice of appeal of the district 

court’s final judgment.15 On March 8, 2019, the State filed in this court an 

emergency motion for stay of judgment. On March 15, 2019, a divided motions 

panel of this court granted in part and denied in part the State’s motion and 

issued an opinion one week later providing its reasoning.16 The panel first 

determined that the State did not have a strong likelihood of overturning the 

district court’s judgment. Nevertheless, noting that the Mississippi 

Legislature should be afforded an additional opportunity to redraw District 22 

and comply with the Voting Rights Act, the panel issued a temporary stay of 

the district court’s judgment until April 3, 2019, and extended the candidate 

filing deadline for any affected districts until April 12, 2019.

E.

On March 26, 2019, the Mississippi Senate exercised its prerogative and 

redrew the legislative map, which the Mississippi House of Representatives

approved the next day. The resulting legislation adopted new district 

boundaries—different from those of the court-mandated plan—affecting

Senate Districts 22 and 13. The legislation provides:

[T]his resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its 

passage; however, in the event that the appellants prevail in the 

appeal of the case of Joseph Thomas, et al. v. Phil Bryant, et al., 

No. 19-60133 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019), this resolution shall be 

repealed and the districts as originally configured in Chapter 2234, 

Laws of 2012, shall take effect.17

 

15 Attorney General Jim Hood did not appeal the district court’s judgment and 

consequently is not a party to this appeal.

16 See Thomas, 919 F.3d at 298.

17 MISS. LEGIS., J.R. 202 (2019).
No. 19-60133

8

On April 4, 2019, Plaintiffs informed the district court that they would

not challenge the State’s newly drawn plan; thus, this is the operative plan for 

the 2019 state senate elections. 

F.

We held oral argument in this matter on June 11, 2019. On August 1, 

2019, we announced our holding, noting that detailed opinions would follow. 

Because we affirmed the district court’s judgment, the Legislature’s plan was 

used in the primary election on August 6, 2019. The general election is 

scheduled for November 5, 2019. 

II.

Before addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim, we must examine de 

novo whether we have jurisdiction on appeal and whether the district court 

had jurisdiction to hear this case with a single judge notwithstanding the 

three-judge provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). We discuss each in 

turn.

A.

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution confines federal courts to the 

decision of “Cases” or “Controversies.”18 “[A]n actual controversy must be 

extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”19 

A case becomes moot “if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that 

makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief what[so]ever’ to 

a prevailing party.”20 A legislative remedy to a challenged law may moot a 

case pending appeal because courts can no longer enjoin the enforcement of a 

 

18 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2.

19 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (quoting Preiser v. 

Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). 

20 Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills 

v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). 
No. 19-60133

9

repealed law that has no effect.21 A case is moot when “(1) it can be said with 

assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation 

will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably 

eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”22 

Prompted by our request for supplemental briefing on mootness,

Plaintiffs assert that the State’s appeal is moot because the Mississippi 

Legislature exercised its prerogative and adopted new boundaries for District 

22—different from the district court’s mandated electoral plan—to be used for 

the upcoming election. Plaintiffs do not challenge the Legislature’s newly 

reconfigured boundaries for District 22. So, according to Plaintiffs, the 

Legislature’s amendment to the 2012 redistricting plan mooted this case while 

our review was pending. We disagree. 

We find that the Legislature’s revised boundaries for District 22 did not 

moot the State’s appeal because the State asserts that it will restore the 

challenged boundaries if it “prevails” and we reverse the district court’s 

judgment. We have previously declined to find that a legislature’s responsive 

fix to an election statute mooted the appeal of the district court ruling that 

triggered the fix.23 When the Mississippi Legislature redrew its district 

boundaries in March 2019, it specifically provided in the legislation that the 

amendments for Districts 22 and 13 “shall be repealed and the districts as 

originally configured” shall be used if the State prevails on this appeal.24 So 

 

21 See Fantasy Ranch Inc. v. City of Arlington, 459 F.3d 546, 564 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted) (“[S]tatutory changes that discontinue a challenged practice are ‘usually 

enough to render a case moot, even if the legislature possesses the power to reenact the 

statute after the lawsuit is dismissed.’”) (quoting Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 

112, 116 (4th Cir. 2000)). 

22 Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (citations omitted). 23 See, e.g., Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792, 799 (5th Cir. 2018); Miss. State Chapter, 

Operation Push v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400, 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1991).

24 MISS. LEGIS., J.R. 202. 
No. 19-60133

10

even though the primary election has passed, the State maintains that, if it 

prevails on appeal, it could then revert to using its original map and conduct 

special elections for Senate Districts 22 and 13. Because the State could gain

effectual relief as a result of this appeal, we hold that this case is not moot with 

respect to the district court’s declaratory judgment;25 appellate jurisdiction 

therefore exists. 

B.

1.

We next determine whether 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), as amended in 1976, 

required the district court to convene a three-judge panel to decide the merits 

of this case.26 “When the plain language of a statute is unambiguous and does 

not ‘lead[] to an absurd result,’ ‘our inquiry begins and ends with the plain 

meaning of that language.’”27

Section 2284(a) provides: “A district court of three judges shall be 

convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is 

filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional 

districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.”28 The 

question presented is whether “constitutionality of” modifies only “the 

apportionment of congressional districts” (as the State argues) or whether it 

also modifies “the apportionment of any statewide legislative body” (as 

Plaintiffs assert). In other words, pertinent here, the question is whether 

 

25 As explained infra at SECTION V, the State’s appeal is moot with respect to the 

district court’s order selecting and adopting a remedial plan because the Legislature’s 

enactment of a new plan superseded the district court’s order. 26 See 21st Mortg. Corp. v. Glenn (In re Glenn), 900 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2018) 

(holding questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo).

27 Sealed Appellee 1 v. Sealed Appellant 1, 767 F.3d 418, 421 (5th Cir. 2013) (alteration 

in original) (quoting United States v. Dison, 573 F.3d 204, 207 (5th Cir. 2009)); Duncan v. 

Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001).

28 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a).
No. 19-60133

11

§ 2284(a) requires a “district court of three judges” only when a plaintiff brings 

a constitutional—as opposed to a statutory—challenge to state legislative 

apportionment. 

The text of § 2284(a) is clear, so we apply the statute as written.29 We 

read § 2284(a) to require a district court to convene as a three-judge district 

court “in cases challenging the constitutionality of state or federal legislative 

apportionment.”30 Leading civil procedure scholars share this view.31 Indeed, 

for decades, district courts nationwide have routinely handled § 2 challenges 

to state legislative maps as single-judge matters—and circuit courts have 

reviewed their work without a hint of jurisdictional doubt.32 This reflects the 

settled understanding of § 2284(a) that has prevailed since its enactment.33 

Moreover, in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a 

 

29 Cf. Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (“The statute is awkward, and even 

ungrammatical; but that does not make it ambiguous . . . .”).

30 22 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 404.02[1] (3d ed. 1997) 

(emphasis added).

31 See id.; 17 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

§ 4235 (3d ed. 2007) (“[A] three-judge court for reapportionment cases . . . [is convened for] 

all federal constitutional challenges that could result in a reapportionment.” (emphasis 

added)).

32 See, e.g., Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004), aff’d, 461 F.3d 

1011 (8th Cir. 2006) (South Dakota House and Senate); Metts v. Almond, 217 F. Supp. 2d 252 

(D.R.I. 2002), rev’d en banc sub nom. Metts v. Murphy, 363 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) (Rhode 

Island Senate); Old Person v. Brown, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Mont. 2002), aff’d, 312 F.3d 

1036 (9th Cir. 2002) (Montana House and Senate); Rural W. Tenn. African Am. Affairs 

Council v. Sundquist, 29 F. Supp. 2d 448 (W.D. Tenn. 1998), aff’d, 209 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 

2000) (Tennessee House); Sanchez v. Colo., 861 F. Supp. 1516 (D. Colo. 1994), rev’d, 97 F.3d 

1303 (10th Cir. 1996) (Colorado House); Dickinson v. Ind. State Election Bd., 740 F. Supp. 

1376 (S.D. Ind. 1990), rev’d in part, vacated in part, 933 F.2d 497 (7th Cir. 1991) (Indiana 

House); Mirrione v. Anderson, 717 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1983) (New York Assembly). 

33 See, e.g., Cavanagh v. Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176, 180 n.3 (E.D.N.C. 1983) (three-judge 

court) (“A three-judge court is mandated pursuant to § 2284 when an action challenges the 

apportionment of a statewide legislative body on substantial federal constitutional grounds.” 

(emphasis added)); Sullivan v. Crowell, 444 F. Supp. 606, 615 n.6 (W.D. Tenn. 1978) (threejudge court) (“Congress did not intend to require a three-judge court in the state legislative 

apportionment context except where a constitutional challenge is made to a statute involving 

‘the apportionment of (a) statewide legislative body.’” (emphasis added)).
No. 19-60133

12

unanimous Supreme Court noted in a parenthetical explanation that § 2284(a) 

“provid[es] for the convention of [a three-judge district court] whenever an 

action is filed challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of legislative 

districts.”34 Both courts and preeminent treatises support this longstanding

understanding of § 2284(a). The State identifies no caselaw or commentary to 

the contrary.35

Furthermore, the “series modifier” canon of construction, even if 

applicable, confirms our reading of § 2284(a). A modifier ordinarily applies to 

an entire series of parallel terms.36 So naturally, here, “constitutionality of” 

applies to both “the apportionment of congressional districts” and “the 

apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” The State, supported by an 

amicus brief, argues the “the” coming before “apportionment of any statewide 

 

34 136 S. Ct. 1301, 1306 (2016) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court offered this 

parenthetical explanation in the context of a constitutional challenge to a state legislative 

map, in the course of summarizing the case’s procedural history. See id. A three-judge court 

had been convened because the case involved a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to 

Arizona’s legislative districts. Id. Though this parenthetical explanation is dicta, the 

Supreme Court’s view confirms our conclusion that a straightforward reading of § 2284(a) 

requires a three-judge district court only in constitutional challenges to the apportionment 

of a state legislative district. 

35 Page v. Bartels, 248 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2001), though cited by the State, hurts its

argument. In Page, a case involving both constitutional and § 2 challenges to the New Jersey 

legislature’s apportionment, the Third Circuit considered whether a single district judge 

erred by ruling on a request for preliminary relief on the statutory claim before convening 

the three-judge court. Id. at 181–82. After careful analysis of the “inextricably intertwined” 

statutory and constitutional claims, the court concluded that the single judge should have 

left the matter of preliminary relief to the three-judge court. Id. at 190. This careful analysis 

was necessary, however, only because the Third Circuit viewed the § 2 claim as outside the 

scope of § 2284(a). Id. at 181 (describing § 2284 as “a special procedural mechanism for 

constitutional challenges to statewide legislative apportionment schemes” (emphasis added)). 

If the § 2 claim were within the scope of § 2284(a) and required a three-judge district court, 

the question would have been easy for the Third Circuit; the single judge’s action on 

preliminary relief would have been clearly wrong. 

36 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF 

LEGAL TEXTS 147 (2012). 
No. 19-60133

13

legislative body” interrupts the series modifier.37 It asserts that this 

“determiner”—the “the” in § 2284(a)—breaks off the modifier to the 

“apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” So the State concludes that 

a district court of three judges is required for all claims challenging state 

legislative seats. We disagree. The modifying clause in § 2284(a) “is applicable 

as much to the first . . . as [it is] to the last.”38 As a leading statutory 

interpretation guide recognizes, “[p]erhaps more than most of the other canons, 

[the series modifier canon] is highly sensitive to context.”39 It makes little 

sense to say that three judges are required to hear statutory claims challenging 

state legislative redistricting but not statutory claims challenging 

congressional redistricting.40 The text of § 2284(a) gives no indication that 

Congress was “hid[ing] elephants in mouseholes.”41 Accordingly, we hold that 

the natural reading of § 2284(a) requires that “constitutionality of” be applied 

to both “the apportionment of congressional districts” and “the apportionment 

of any statewide legislative body.”42

 

37 Amicus Judicial Watch also argues that “the presence of a determiner before the 

phrase ‘any statewide legislative body’ in § 2284(a) means that the earlier phrase ‘the 

constitutionality of’ was not meant to modify that second phrase.”

38 See Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 447 (2014) (quoting Porto Rico Railway, 

Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348 (1920)).

39 See SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 38, at 150. 

40 To further illustrate, we note, as an example, that the judicial review section of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) provides: 

If any action is brought for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the 

constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 

Act, the following rules shall apply: (1) The action shall be filed in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-

judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. 

52 U.S.C. § 30110(a). Under the State’s interpretation and application of the “series modifier” 

canon, a three-judge district court would be required for statutory claims challenging “any 

amendment” to the BCRA, but not to “any provision” of the BCRA itself. Such a reading, and 

application thereof, would be absurd. 

41 Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).

42 Because this statute is unambiguous, we need not address the State’s legislative 

history argument. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 480 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting 

“repairing to legislative history would be unnecessary and improper” if statute is clear). 
No. 19-60133

14

2.

In the alternative, the State argues that a § 2 challenge is a 

constitutional one because Congress passed the VRA to enforce the Fifteenth 

Amendment.43 This argument is unavailing. As the Supreme Court noted in 

Gingles, Congress amended the VRA in 1982 to reject the Court’s prior 

determination in City of Mobile v. Bolden.44 The Bolden Court held that the 

prior version of § 2 “was intended to have an effect no different from that of the 

Fifteenth Amendment itself,” such that proof of intentional discrimination was 

required to prove a § 2 vote dilution claim.45 But Congress disagreed—

amending the VRA to provide a scheme for plaintiffs to establish a § 2 case by 

“showing discriminatory effect alone.”46 Henceforth, constitutional challenges 

under, inter alia, the Fifteenth Amendment and statutory challenges under § 2 

adhere to different legal precedents and evidentiary standards.47 Indeed, as 

noted, courts have repeatedly treated § 2 claims as non-constitutional 

challenges.48 

 

43 The Fifteenth Amendment provides: 

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be 

denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, 

color, or previous condition of servitude. 

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 

appropriate legislation.

U.S. CONST. amend. XV.

44 478 U.S. at 35 (citing City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)). 

45 Bolden, 446 U.S. at 61–62.

46 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47; accord Dickinson v. Ind. State Election Bd., 933 F.2d 497, 

502 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[P]laintiffs here base their claim on [§ 2] alone, not on constitutional 

principles, implying that the district court’s reliance on pre-1982 cases or those dealing with 

constitutional challenges to apportionment schemes is less relevant.”).

47 See, e.g., City of Carrollton Branch of the NAACP v. Stallings, 829 F.2d 1547, 1553 

(11th Cir. 1987) (“Proof that a contested electoral practice or mechanism was adopted or 

maintained with the intent to discriminate against minority voters . . . is not required under 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”); see also League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry 

(“LULAC”), 548 U.S. 399, 425, 442 (2006) (declining to apply First Amendment and equal 

protection standards to a district because it had already been found to violate § 2). 

48 See supra notes 32-33.
No. 19-60133

15

The State’s theory has a more basic problem. Every valid congressional 

enactment is based on some provision of the Constitution. Under the State’s 

theory, federal criminal law and tax law—typically enacted via Congress’s 

commerce, taxing, and necessary and proper powers—would all be 

constitutional matters. We find no legal or logical support for the State’s 

position. 

Because § 2284(a) does not apply, and this suit only concerns a § 2 

statutory challenge, we hold that the district court, sitting as a single judge, 

had proper authority to decide this case.49

III.

We now consider the State’s laches defense. The State contends that this 

lawsuit comes too late—the challenged map was enacted in 2012, Plaintiff 

Thomas ran and lost the state senate race for District 22 in 2015, and the three 

plaintiffs here did not commence legal action until July 2018. The State 

asserts that Plaintiffs inexcusably delayed the filing of this suit, and the State 

contends that it suffered undue prejudice. It argues that the district court 

therefore erred by not dismissing this case based on laches. We review the 

district court’s ruling on laches for abuse of discretion and its findings of fact 

underpinning that ruling for clear error.50

Laches “is a defense developed by courts of equity,”51 which applies 

where a plaintiff “unreasonably delays in filing a suit and as a result harms 

the defendant.”52 To successfully establish a laches defense, the defendant 

 

49 Plaintiffs argue that even if § 2284(a) applies, the State has waived it because the 

State did not request a three-judge panel until two weeks before trial. The State, however, 

asserts that § 2284(a) is jurisdictional and thus cannot be waived. Because we conclude that 

§ 2284(a) does not apply in this case, we need not decide whether this statute poses a 

jurisdictional rule. 

50 Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 842 F.3d 883, 900 (5th Cir. 2016). 

51 Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1973 (2014).

52 Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 121 (2002).
No. 19-60133

16

must prove “(1) a delay asserting a right or claim; (2) that the delay was 

inexcusable; [and] (3) that undue prejudice resulted from the delay.”53 As set 

forth below, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

rejecting the State’s laches defense. 

A.

We first consider whether Plaintiffs unreasonably and inexcusably 

delayed in filing this suit. The State has proffered two different time periods 

in which it alleges Plaintiffs should have commenced legal action. In the 

district court, the State argued that Plaintiffs’ claim accrued in September

2012 when the U.S. Department of Justice granted preclearance to the State’s 

redistricting plan under § 5 of the VRA. The State argued that Mississippi’s 

general three-year “catch-all” statute of limitations54 applied and thus barred 

Plaintiffs’ action because they delayed this action by six years. But now, on 

appeal, the State argues that Plaintiffs’ claim accrued with the November 2015 

election in District 22, when, according to the State, “all of the necessary facts 

were in place.” The State concedes that “[t]here is no question that if this suit 

had been brought in 2015, when all the facts necessary to plaintiffs’ case were 

known, orderly review and orderly deliberation could have taken place.”

As a threshold matter, “[t]he trial court cannot have erred as to matters 

which were not presented to it.”55 Because the State’s laches argument at 

summary judgment identified September 2012 as the accrual date, we cannot 

 

53 Retractable Techs., 842 F.3d at 899–900 (alteration in original) (quoting Elvis 

Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 205 (5th Cir. 1998)); see also City of El Paso v. 

El Paso Entm’t, Inc., 382 F. App’x 361, 366 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding the party asserting a 

laches defense bears the burden of proving it).

54 Mississippi’s “catch-all” statute of limitation provides: “All actions for which no 

other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after 

the cause of such action accrued, and not after.” MISS. CODE ANN. § 15-1-49(1).

55 Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir. 1988). 
No. 19-60133

17

fault the district court for not ruling on “arguments not presented below.”56 

We agree, nonetheless, with the State’s argument on appeal that the Plaintiffs’ 

clock, for laches purposes, began to run after the November 2015 election. 

“Although laches is an equitable defense, it is usually applied with 

reference to the limitations period for the analogous action at law, which may 

be state law if no federal limitation law exists.”57 In the district court, the 

State argued that because the VRA does not contain a limitations period, the 

general three-year “catch-all” limitations period of Mississippi Code § 15-1-49 

should bar Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim. We use the state statute of limitations here as 

a reference point.58 The first time Plaintiffs should have known of their claim 

is in November 2015. Significantly, the 2015 election was the first time the 

challenged map was implemented and used for District 22. To Plaintiffs, 

Thomas’s loss confirmed their basis for an actionable § 2 claim; it bolstered 

their case showing a Voting Rights Act violation. It follows that under 

Mississippi’s three-year “catch-all” period, Plaintiffs’ suit—filed in July 2018—

would be considered timely.59 

Furthermore, we note that resolving a laches defense is a fact-specific 

inquiry, and the State points to no evidence that Plaintiffs unreasonably 

delayed in filing this suit given the three-year analogous prescriptive period. 

For election cases, circuit courts have generally approved laches defenses only 

in cases filed much closer in time to the general election than this case.60 

 

56 McDonald v. Bd. of Miss. Levee Comm’rs, 832 F.2d 901, 909 (5th Cir. 1987).

57 Retractable Techs., 842 F.3d at 900 (citation omitted). 58 The district court also used the three-year “catch-all” limitations period as 

reference, which the State does not challenge on appeal.

59 Cf. Holman v. Gulf Ref. Co. of La., 76 F.2d 94, 99 (5th Cir. 1935) (“[L]aches is not a 

mere matter of the lapse of time, but rather of neglect and delay that is hurtful to the other 

party and to a fair trial, because of which the extraordinary powers of equity will remain 

passive. It may exist though no statute of limitation bars.”). 

60 See, e.g., Dickinson, 933 F.2d at 499–502 (suit filed eight months before general 

election); Simkins v. Gressette, 631 F.2d 287, 289 (4th Cir. 1980) (suit filed two days before 
No. 19-60133

18

Moreover, one circuit court has rejected a laches defense to § 2 relief ordered 

closer in time to the general election than the relief ordered here.61 The State 

cites no binding Supreme Court authority on laches. Its lone circuit authority 

is White v. Daniel, a Fourth Circuit case in which plaintiffs challenged the map 

for a Virginia county’s board of supervisors.62 That case is easily 

distinguishable. There, the map was drawn in 1971 and retained after the 

1980 census.63 The last election under the map before the 1990 census was in 

1987.64 The plaintiffs sued after that election, in September 1988.65 The 

plaintiffs’ suit thus came too late to affect any election under the map and 

would have saddled the county with two redistricting processes in a short 

period.66 

Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs filed their complaint well before the 

elections: sixteen months before the general election and thirteen months 

before the primary election. To our knowledge, no circuit court has disturbed 

a district court’s denial of a laches defense in any case where the suit was filed 

more than eight months before the election. Consequently, if we were to 

reverse the district court based on the doctrine of laches, we would be the

circuit outlier. Accordingly, we find that the district court acted within its 

discretion.67 

 

the start of the candidate-qualifying period and eight months before the general election); 

Md. Citizens for a Representative Gen. Assembly v. Governor of Md., 429 F.3d 606, 609 (4th 

Cir. 1970) (suit filed thirteen weeks before filing deadline, five months before primaries, and 

seven months before general election). 

61 See Garza v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 756 F. Supp. 1298, 1303 (C.D. Cal. 1990), aff’d in 

relevant part, 918 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) (rejecting laches in suit that went to trial six 

months before general election and resulted in relief four months before election).

62 909 F.2d 99, 100–02 (4th Cir. 1990). 63 Id. at 101.

64 Id. at 103–04. 

65 Id. 66 Id. at 104.

67 We understand that changes to upcoming elections will inevitably cause disruption. 

Nonetheless, we do not find that the Legislature’s operative plan—adopted over seven 
No. 19-60133

19

B.

Laches is not a doctrine concerned solely with timing. A defendant must 

also establish undue prejudice as an independent element of its defense.68

“Measuring prejudice entails balancing equities.”69 Plaintiffs understandably 

consider their case of great importance, and it carries significant public 

implications. The State, however, argues that Plaintiffs’ suit injects confusion 

and uncertainty into the November 2019 election. It argues that candidates 

do not know where to campaign or fundraise, and voters do not know their 

electoral options. Moreover, the State complains of the tight deadline the 

district court imposed for the Legislature to create a remedy. 

 

months before the general election for two of fifty-two districts—is unduly late or disruptive. 

For instance, in Reynolds v. Sims, the epochal decision establishing the “one-person, onevote” doctrine, the Supreme Court reviewed a district court decision issued in late-July 1962 

that set a new map for use in Alabama’s elections later that year. 377 U.S. 533 (1964). The 

Supreme Court endorsed that action as “an appropriate and well-considered exercise of 

judicial power,” done “in a most proper and commendable manner.” Id. at 586–87. The 

dissent approvingly cites Reynolds’s guidance on the timing of voting remedies without 

acknowledging that the district court there revised a state’s entire legislative map four 

months closer to the general election than the two-district change imposed here.

Purcell v. Gonzalez is an instructive contrast. 549 U.S. 1 (2006). There, the suit was 

filed in May 2006 challenging an Arizona law governing voter registration and identification. 

Id. at 2–3. In September 2006, the district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction 

affecting the election that November. Id. at 3. A motions panel of the Ninth Circuit then 

stayed the law without oral argument or explanation on October 5, affecting the election 

starting a few weeks later. Id. The Supreme Court then stepped in on October 20 and lifted 

the Ninth Circuit’s injunction, citing the need to avoid disrupting the looming election. Id. 

at 4–5. The dissent’s favored cases on the timing of election remedies all featured comparably 

truncated timetables. See Husted v. Ohio State Conf. of N.A.A.C.P., 573 U.S. 988 (2014) 

(Mem.); North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N.C., 135 S. Ct. 6 (2014) (Mem.); Veasey 

v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014).

Admittedly not laches cases, Reynolds and Purcell nonetheless provide some useful 

guidance to lower courts as we decide what actions to take with an election nearing: LateJuly relief was permissible in Reynolds; October relief was not in Purcell. This indicates, to 

us, that the Legislature’s March relief, in response to the court’s order, is not unduly 

disruptive. 

68 Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 614 F.2d 474, 479 (5th Cir. 1980) (treating 

prejudice as “prerequisite” to laches, distinct from delay).

69 Id.
No. 19-60133

20

For purposes of a laches defense, forms of prejudice generally cognizable 

by courts in the election context include the burden of redistricting twice in a 

short span of time—that is, when a court orders redistricting shortly before the 

regular, decennial redistricting70—or upsetting the results of an election 

already conducted (e.g., a corresponding primary election).71 The State 

principally relies on the cases discussing these sources of prejudice, but neither 

scenario applies. In this case, Plaintiffs filed their voting rights case sixteen 

months before the general election and thirteen months before the primaries; 

the parties had until January 18, 2019 (over six months) to conduct discovery; 

the district court conducted a bench trial in February 2019, nine months before 

the general election. Moreover, this suit was filed four years before 2022, the 

Mississippi Legislature’s deadline to redistrict after the 2020 census.72 

We are satisfied that the district court did not clearly err in finding no 

undue prejudice.73 Following the trial and the district court’s judgment, the 

 

70 See, e.g., White, 909 F.2d at 104; Fouts v. Harris, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1354–55 (S.D. 

Fla. 1999).

71 See, e.g., Lopez v. Hale Cty., 797 F. Supp. 547, 550 (N.D. Tex. 1992) (three-judge 

court) (addressing suit filed after primary elections had already occurred under challenged 

plan).

72 See MISS. CONST. art. XIII, § 254; Miss. State Conf. of NAACP v. Barbour, 2011 WL 

1870222, at *7 (S.D. Miss. May 16, 2011), aff’d, 565 U.S. 972 (2011). 

73 The State makes the conclusory argument that the expedited timetable impaired 

its ability to litigate effectively. But it points to no specific problem such as inadequate time 

to conduct discovery or hire experts. Additionally, we have held that in making scheduling 

decisions, a court’s “judgment range is exceedingly wide,” for it “must consider not only the 

facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.” HC 

Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549–50 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Recognizing the upcoming election timeline, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

expediting its administration of this case. See id. (noting “[a] trial judge’s control of discovery 

is granted great deference” and “[w]e will reverse a discovery ruling only if it is ‘arbitrary or 

clearly unreasonable.’” (citations omitted)). 

Even if this litigation timeline were relevant to laches, it is unpersuasive. The State 

had sufficient time to prepare this case. As previously noted, this lawsuit was filed sixteen 

months before the November 2019 election, and the district court conducted the bench trial 

in February 2019. Here, both parties had enough time for discovery and filed numerous 

motions. Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Palmer and Mr. Cooper, completed their reports on 
No. 19-60133

21

Legislature was able to redraw District 22. Under the state constitution, the 

Mississippi Legislature meets no more than ninety days annually.74 This 

year’s legislative session started on January 8, 2019 and concluded on March 

29, 2019.75 On February 13, 2019, six days after the bench trial concluded, the 

district court “advise[d] the Mississippi Legislature that the evidence supports 

the plaintiffs’ allegations” and “[a]s [then] drawn, District 22 [did] not afford 

the plaintiffs ‘an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes and 

to elect candidates of their choice.’” At that point, the Legislature had fiftythree days left of its regular session. When the district court issued its findings 

of fact and conclusions of law on February 16, it invited the Legislature to 

redraw District 22 if the State wished to do so. The district court correctly 

recognized that a “legislative plan is unequivocally to be preferred over a courtordered plan.”76 

On February 21, 2019, the district court held a teleconference, personally 

joined by Secretary of State Hosemann. In that meeting, based on the district 

court record, the parties “convinced the Court that no further hearings were 

necessary.”77 

 

December 10, 2018 and January 18, 2019, respectively. The State’s expert, Dr. Morrison, 

also completed his report on January 18, 2019. The State had about two months to review 

Dr. Palmer’s analysis and about three weeks to review Mr. Cooper’s findings. Though the 

State complains that it only learned several days before trial that Dr. Palmer’s analysis did 

not capture 2,000 voters who mistakenly voted outside the district in 2015, the State properly 

cross-examined him about this point at trial. Based on our careful review of the record, this 

was a well-tried case. The district court promptly decided this case and issued its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on February 16, 2019. 

74 MISS. CONST. art. IV, § 36.

75 Under the Mississippi Constitution, the Legislature could have stayed in session 

until April 7, 2019, without two-thirds approval from both legislative chambers. See id.

76 See Operation Push, 932 F.2d at 406 (citations omitted) (“In the reapportionment 

cases, courts clearly defer to the legislature in the first instance to undertake remedies for 

violations of § 2.”).

77 Given this teleconference, the dissent’s criticism of the district court for not 

conducting a “sufficient” evidentiary hearing on remedies is unfounded. See Dissenting Op. 

at 4. See SECTION V(B) for discussion on the district court’s remedial plan.
No. 19-60133

22

Then, on February 26, 2019, the State informed the district court that 

the Mississippi Legislature intended to redraw District 22 “should the stay 

motions pending before [the district court] and the Fifth Circuit be denied.” 

But recognizing the fast-approaching election qualification deadline of March 

1, the district court implemented a remedial plan for District 22 on February 

26, 2019, and extended the qualification deadline to March 15, 2019. A motions 

panel of this Court later stayed the court-mandated plan until April 3, 2019, 

and provided the Legislature with another opportunity to redraw the 

boundaries for District 22. The Legislature then acted, and created new lines 

for Districts 22 and 13 on March 27, 2019, which Plaintiffs do not challenge. 

In short, the Legislature was able to redistrict District 22. It was 

unnecessary for the State, for instance, to extend the legislative calendar or 

call a special session to accomplish this task. This suit was about one district 

out of fifty-two in the Senate, and only one other district had to be changed in 

producing the new map. At base, just eight precincts were shifted. We find 

unpersuasive the State’s claim of clear error as to undue prejudice here. 

Finally, we consider any prejudice to the candidates and voters. 

According to Plaintiffs,78 the Legislature’s new plan moves only five Bolivar 

County precincts previously in Senate District 22 to Senate District 13 and 

shifts three Sunflower County precincts from Senate District 13 to Senate 

District 22. The vast majority of District 22 remains unaffected: The newly 

drawn map shifts eight precincts. The Legislature’s plan makes District 22 

much more compact and reduces its geographic size, from over 100 miles to 87 

miles from north to south. Candidates have time to continue fundraising and 

 

78 The following description of the Legislature’s plan is taken from the uncontroverted 

affidavits of Plaintiffs’ experts filed in the district court record after the Legislature’s plan 

was adopted. 
No. 19-60133

23

campaigning; voters still go to the same polls. We see no clear error by the 

district court as to undue prejudice here.79 

The dissent relies on one pending district court case, Chestnut v. 

Merrill,80 for support that laches should bar Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive 

relief.81 Yet Chestnut is distinguishable: The delay and prejudice in that case

were great. In Chestnut, the plaintiffs asked the court to redraw a majority of 

the congressional districts in Alabama—four out of seven.82 Three elections

(in 2012, 2014, and 2016) had already taken place under the challenged 

congressional district boundaries. In contrast, the instant case involves only 

one of fifty-two state senate districts, and the remedy affected just one other. 

And no election took place with the challenged Mississippi senate map until 

2015. In sum, Chestnut is not helpful to the State and does not support the 

dissent’s position.83 

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the State’s laches defense. The State did not meet its 

ultimate burden.

 

79 To the extent the State is arguing that Plaintiffs injected uncertainty into the 

November 2019 election, we note that such confusion, if any, is compounded by the 

Legislature’s resolution conditioning the effect of its newly drawn district lines on the instant 

appeal.

80 377 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (N.D. Ala. 2019).

81 Dissenting Op. at 9–10. 82 Chestnut, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1311.

83 Even if Chestnut did help the State, it would not end this litigation. Though the 

district court denied injunctive relief, it allowed the plaintiffs to pursue declaratory relief. 

Chestnut, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1317–18 (“[W]hile the defendant may be prejudiced by the 

plaintiff’s delay in bringing a voting rights claim for injunctive relief, the same prejudice does 

not apply to a claim for declaratory relief. . . . Even if the court were to find that Defendant 

would be prejudiced as to injunctive relief, declaratory relief would still be available to 

Plaintiffs.”) (citing Sanders v. Dooly Cty., 245 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also 

Dickinson, 933 F.2d at 503 (Seventh Circuit decision taking same approach).
No. 19-60133

24

IV.

Turning to the merits, Plaintiffs asserted that the redistricting plan 

adopted by the Mississippi Legislature in 2012 violated § 2 of the VRA in that 

the boundary lines of District 22 diluted African-American voting strength and 

deprived African-American voters of an equal opportunity to elect candidates 

of their choice. They maintained that though African Americans made up a 

majority of the voting age population in District 22, that majority lacked “real 

electoral opportunity” under Supreme Court precedent interpreting § 2 of the 

VRA. Plaintiffs contended that District 22 could be redrawn to cure the § 2 

violation with changes to only one or two adjacent districts; that the resulting 

districts would be more compact than in the 2012 plan; and that the alteration 

would not create Voting Rights Act violations in any other districts. After 

conducting a two-day bench trial, the district court determined that Plaintiffs 

met their burden of proof as to their § 2 vote-dilution claim and rendered 

judgment in their favor. 

A.

Before we address the State’s appellate challenges to the district court’s 

decision, we set forth the law applicable to a § 2 vote-dilution claim and our 

standard of review. Subsection 2(a) of the VRA prohibits all states and political 

subdivisions from imposing “any standards, practices, or procedures which 

result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote of any citizen who is a 

member of a protected class of racial and language minorities.”84 Subsection 

2(b) provides that a violation of § 2(a) is established if:

[B]ased on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the 

political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or 

political subdivision are not equally open to participation by 

members of a [protected] class . . . in that its members have less 

 

84 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 43 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (current version at 52 U.S.C. 

§ 10301(a))).
No. 19-60133

25

opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in 

the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.85

Subsection 2(b) specifically provides that “one circumstance” which may be 

considered in determining whether § 2(a) has been violated is “[t]he extent to 

which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or 

political subdivision.” However, it cautions “[t]hat nothing in [§ 2] establishes 

a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their 

proportion in the population.”86

In Thornburg v. Gingles, the seminal vote-dilution case, the Supreme 

Court explained that “[t]he essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, 

practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an 

inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their 

preferred representatives.”87 The Court further explained that Congress 

amended § 2 of the VRA in 1982 to “make clear that a [§ 2] violation could be 

proved by showing discriminatory effect alone” and that proof of discriminatory 

intent was not required.88 The Court additionally noted that “[t]he Senate 

Judiciary Committee majority Report accompanying the bill that amended § 2 

 

85 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).

86 Id. While the dissent emphasizes this cautionary provision, it ignores the preceding 

sentence specifically stating that the district court may consider, as “one circumstance” in 

the totality of the circumstances establishing a violation of § 2(a), “[t]he extent to which 

members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision.” 

Here, the district court properly applied the entirety of § 2(b) in its analysis. It noted the 

Supreme Court precedent “instruct[ing] district courts to be cautious about finding a § 2 

violation where the ‘districting scheme’ features ‘majority-minority districts in substantial 

proportion to the minority’s share of voting age population.’” Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 809 

(quoting Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1013 (1994)). But then determined that such 

caution was not warranted in this case because the number of majority-minority districts in 

substantial proportion to the minority’s share of voting age population would be 21, and the 

number under the 2012 redistricting plan was only 15. Id.

87 478 U.S. at 47.

88 Id. at 35. 
No. 19-60133

26

elaborate[d] on the circumstances that might be probative of a § 2 violation.”89 

Those circumstances are frequently referred to as the “Senate factors” and 

include the following: 

(1) the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or 

political subdivision; 

(2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or 

political subdivision is racially polarized; 

(3) the extent to which the State or political subdivision has 

used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the 

opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, 

such as unusually large election districts, majority vote 

requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; 

(4) the exclusion of members of the minority group from 

candidate slating processes; 

(5) the extent to which minority group members bear the effects 

of past discrimination in areas such as education, 

employment, and health, which hinder their ability to 

participate effectively in the political process; 

(6) the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political 

campaigns; and 

(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have 

been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.90

The Senate Report stressed that the above list of factors was “neither 

comprehensive nor exclusive” and that there was “no requirement that any 

particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one 

way or the other.”91

 

89 Id. at 36.

90 Id. at 44–45.

91 Id. at 45 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
No. 19-60133

27

The Gingles Court held that prior to establishing the Senate factors, 

minority voters asserting a § 2 vote-dilution claim must first prove three 

“necessary preconditions.”92 First, the minority group must show “that it is 

sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a 

single-member district.”93 Second, the minority group must demonstrate “that 

it is politically cohesive.”94 And third, the minority group must establish “that 

the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of 

special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed—

usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”95 

Finally, the Court “reaffirm[ed] its view that the clearly-erroneous test 

of Rule 52(a) is the appropriate standard for appellate review of a finding of 

vote dilution.”96 In reaffirming the proper standard of review, the Court noted 

that a district court’s finding of vote dilution is “peculiarly dependent upon the 

facts of each case” and “requires an intensely local appraisal of the design and 

impact of the contested electoral mechanisms.”97 The Court additionally 

observed that the clearly-erroneous standard of “Rule 52(a) does not inhibit an 

appellate court’s power to correct errors of law . . . or a finding of fact that is 

predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law.”98 Rather, 

“application of the clearly-erroneous standard to ultimate findings of vote 

 

92 Id. at 50–51.

93 Id. at 50.

94 Id. at 51.

95 Id. (citations omitted). The dissent contends that the Gingles factors do not 

constitute the test for a vote-dilution claim, and that the “totality of the circumstances” is not 

“the entirety” of the statute’s text. Dissenting Op. at 14. In its apparent attempt to disavow 

Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting § 2, the dissent does not favor us with the proper 

standard to be applied when reviewing the district court’s declaratory judgment, which is the 

only matter reviewable in this appeal. Instead, the dissent focuses mostly on issues not 

before us.

96 Id. at 79.

97 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

98 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
No. 19-60133

28

dilution preserves the benefit of the trial court’s particular familiarity with the 

indigenous political reality without endangering the rule of law.”99

B.

The State first asserts that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs were not 

entitled to assert a § 2 challenge to District 22 as drawn by the 2012 

redistricting plan because African Americans already made up a majority of 

the voting age population (50.8%) in the district. The State contends that its 

argument is supported by Supreme Court precedent. We disagree.

“Unimpeachable authority from our circuit has rejected any per se rule 

that a racial minority that is a majority in a political subdivision cannot 

experience vote dilution.”100 Other circuits have also rejected such a rule.101 

As interpreted by the Supreme Court in Gingles, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act

protects the voting rights of “member[s] of a protected class of racial and 

language minorities.”102 We have held that § 2 “is concerned with protecting 

the minority in its capacity as a national racial or language group,” and not 

with protecting “a numerical minority of voters in the jurisdiction at issue.”103 

Importantly, the Supreme Court has specifically stated that “it may be possible 

for a citizen voting-age majority to lack real electoral opportunity,” and thereby 

require the protection of § 2.104

In asserting that Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim is not legally cognizable at all 

because they represent a BVAP majority in District 22, the State relies on a 

 

99 Id.

100 Monroe v. City of Woodville, 881 F.2d 1327, 1333 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). 

101 See Mo. St. Conf. of the NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 894 F.3d 924, 

934 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding that “minority voters do not lose VRA protection simply because 

they represent a bare numerical majority within that district” and collecting cases from the 

Second, Fifth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits holding same).

102 478 U.S. at 43.

103 Salas v. Sw. Tex. Jr. Coll. Dist., 964 F.2d 1542, 1547–48 (5th Cir. 1992) (providing 

thorough discussion of the “kind of ‘minority’ the [VRA] protects”). 

104 LULAC, 548 U.S. at 428.
No. 19-60133

29

Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland,105 that involved a fundamentally 

different issue: crossover districts. The plaintiffs in Bartlett were county 

officials who contended that state officials had violated a provision of the state 

constitution prohibiting the partition of counties between legislative 

districts.106 The defendants responded that § 2 of the VRA required them to

preserve a district in which African-American voters consistently elected their 

preferred candidate with “crossover” voters from the white majority, which 

necessitated splitting the plaintiffs’ county.107 The Court rejected the 

defendants’ argument, holding that “[n]othing in § 2 grants special protection 

to a minority group’s right to form political coalitions.”108 The Court further 

observed: “There is a difference between a racial minority group’s ‘own choice’ 

and the choice made by a coalition.”109

In rendering its holding, the Court clarified the meaning of the first 

Gingles precondition: A party asserting a § 2 claim must show by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the voting-age minority population in the 

potential election district is greater than 50%.110 The Court did not hold, as 

the State incorrectly suggests, that if the district being challenged already 

contains a majority-minority population, then a § 2 claim is precluded. That 

situation did not arise in Bartlett, so the Court’s holding did not address it. As 

observed by the Second Circuit, while the “creation of [majority-minority 

districts] with simple majority representation does not necessarily close the 

gate to a potential finding of vote dilution, plaintiffs need not show more than 

 

105 556 U.S. 1, 13 (2009).

106 Id. at 7.

107 Id. at 7–9.

108 Id. at 14–15. 

109 Id. at 15.

110 Id. at 19–20.
No. 19-60133

30

a simple majority at the first step of the Gingles analysis to open the gate to 

further Section 2 inquiry.”111

If anything, a close reading of Bartlett shows that it supports Plaintiffs’ 

assertion of a § 2 claim here. The Court began its opinion in Bartlett by 

“review[ing] the terminology often used to describe various features of election 

districts in relation to the requirements of the [VRA].”112 The Court then 

stated: “In majority-minority districts, a minority group composes a 

numerical, working majority of the voting-age population. Under present 

doctrine, § 2 can require the creation of these districts.”113 Here, although 

African Americans composed a bare numerical voting-age majority in District 

22 under the 2012 plan, Plaintiffs alleged (and ultimately proved) that African 

Americans were not a working majority and that § 2 required creation of a 

working majority-minority district. The State’s reliance on Bartlett, thus, is 

misplaced.

Contrary to the State’s contentions, the fact that Plaintiffs’ § 2 challenge 

involves a single-member district, and not an at-large electoral district, does 

not render the above principles inapplicable. The Supreme Court has held that 

the Gingles framework is applicable in § 2 challenges to single-member 

districts.114 And, in the Court’s decision in LULAC v. Perry, the Court applied 

 

111 Pope v. Cty. of Albany, 687 F.3d 565, 575 n.8 (2d Cir. 2012). Although the State 

relies on a decision from the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jeffers v. Beebe, 895 F. Supp. 2d 

920 (E.D. Ark. 2012), which applied Bartlett to preclude a plaintiff from asserting a § 2 

challenge to a majority-minority district, that decision was overruled by the Eighth Circuit’s 

contrary holding in Ferguson-Florissant. See 894 F.3d at 934.

112 Bartlett, 556 U.S. at 13.

113 Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In the recent case, Abbott v. Perez, the 

Court reaffirmed these principles: “In a series of cases tracing back to Thornburg v. Gingles, 

[] we have interpreted [§ 2’s] standard to mean that, under certain circumstances, States 

must draw ‘opportunity’ districts in which minority groups form ‘effective majorit[ies].’” 138 

S. Ct. 2305, 2315 (2018) (citations omitted).

114 Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 40–41 (1993) (holding that although Gingles involved 

multimember districts, the Gingles threshold requirements should be applied in § 2 votedilution challenges to single-member districts). 
No. 19-60133

31

the Gingles framework and the above principles when considering a § 2 

challenge to a single-member congressional district in Texas.115 Specifically,

the Court determined that although Latinos were a “bare majority of the 

voting-age population” in the challenged district, that majority was a “hollow” 

one, and plaintiffs had established that they “could have had an opportunity 

district in [the challenged single-member district] had its lines not been 

altered.”116 The Court ultimately determined that the plaintiffs were entitled 

to § 2 relief.117 The State’s argument in this case that Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim is 

not legally cognizable because it challenges a majority-minority, singlemember district has no merit.118

Finally, we disagree with the State’s assertion, which was never raised 

to the district court, that Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim is “novel” because Plaintiffs’ 

allegations did not contain the terms “cracking” (fragmentation of minority 

group among various districts so that it is a majority in none) or “packing” 

(concentration of minority group in a few number of districts where it 

constitutes an excessive majority). We find no statute or caselaw mandating 

 

115 548 U.S. at 425–43.

116 Id. at 429. 

117 Id. at 442.

118 The dissent acknowledges these legal principles but insists that no court has ever 

found that a majority-minority district violated § 2. That is wrong. Some claims, of course, 

involve districts where the protected class is needlessly far above a majority. See, e.g., Bone 

Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 980 (D.S.D. 2004), aff’d, 461 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2006) 

(finding a district with a 90-percent Native American supermajority violated §2). Courts 

have also found violations where the protected class’s voting strength was too weak in a 

district despite being a numerical majority. LULAC was such a case. See also Perez v. Abbott, 

253 F. Supp. 3d 864, 879–90 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (three-judge court) (finding, in a ruling that 

state defendants did not appeal, that the 2011 version of Texas Congressional District 23 

violated § 2 in both intent and effect despite having a Hispanic citizen voting-age majority of 

58.5%); Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov’t Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840, 854–58 

(E.D. Wis. 2012) (finding that two state assembly districts diluted Latino voting strength 

despite having 54% and 61% Latino voting-age population).
No. 19-60133

32

that a plaintiff’s allegations under § 2 include those terms.119 Moreover, we 

note that specific allegations of “cracking” or “packing” were not made in 

LULAC v. Perry, yet the Court still determined that the plaintiffs were entitled 

to relief because the legislature’s redrawing of a single-member district 

violated § 2.120

Based on the foregoing, the district court did not err in determining that 

Plaintiffs’ § 2 challenge to a majority-minority, single-member district was 

legally cognizable. 

C.

Under the guidance of Gingles, this court uses a two-part framework for 

analyzing § 2 claims. First, plaintiffs must satisfy the three Gingles

preconditions; “[f]ailure to establish all three elements defeats a § 2 claim.”121 

Second, if the three preconditions are proved, plaintiffs must then show that 

based on the “totality of the circumstances” (as informed by the Senate factors), 

the challenged practice or structure results in plaintiffs’ having “less 

opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political 

 

119 Allegations of “cracking” or “packing” can figure prominently in racial 

gerrymandering cases, in which evidence that a legislature moved large numbers of one race 

in or out of a district may be strong circumstantial evidence that “racial considerations

predominated” in the legislature’s decisions. See Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1472–78 

(2017). But this case is governed by § 2’s results test, not racial gerrymandering caselaw, so 

it does not entail that potentially sensitive inquiry into the Mississippi Legislature’s intent. 

Cf. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 280–81 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Jones, J., concurring in 

part and dissenting in part). This difference between racial gerrymandering claims, which 

focus on intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, and vote-dilution 

claims, which focus on discriminatory effect under § 2 of the VRA, was explained by the Court 

in Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2314-15, 2330-35 (2018). See discussion infra. p. 45. In 

any event, Plaintiffs’ theory—that District 22 lacked adequate African-American voting 

strength, remediable by adding precincts with African-American voters from adjoining 

districts—is functionally equivalent to asserting “cracking.”

120 548 U.S. at 423–43, 447.

121 Teague v. Attala Cty., 92 F.3d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1996).
No. 19-60133

33

process and to elect representatives of their choice.”122 We have noted that “it 

will be only the very unusual case in which the plaintiffs can establish the 

existence of the three Gingles factors but still have failed to establish a 

violation of § 2 under the totality of the circumstances.”123

The State asserts that even if Plaintiffs can assert a legally cognizable 

§ 2 challenge to a majority-minority, single-member district, they failed to 

prove the first Gingles precondition—that the minority group is sufficiently 

large and geographically compact to constitute a voting age majority in a 

single-member district—because District 22 already contained a majorityminority voting age population. It is an incontestable fact that African 

Americans can constitute a majority of the district; they already do, if only 

barely. The State’s argument is simply a reassertion of its argument 

(discussed above) that Plaintiffs’ § 2 claim is not legally cognizable. The State’s 

attempt to reframe its argument in the context of the Gingles preconditions is 

unavailing. For the reasons previously stated, the State’s argument

challenging the first precondition has no merit. 

Regarding the second Gingles precondition—that the minority group is 

“politically cohesive”—the State does not directly challenge the district court’s 

factual finding of this precondition as clearly erroneous. In fact, the State 

never disputed Plaintiffs’ proof of the second Gingles precondition in the 

district court.124 

 

122 Clark v. Calhoun Cty., 21 F.3d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) 

(current version at 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a))).

123 Id. at 97 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

124 See Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 805 (“It is undisputed that African-American voters 

in District 22 are politically cohesive.”). To the extent the State now attempts to dispute 

political cohesiveness, we find the issue waived based on the State’s failure to brief. See 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be 

preserved.”).
No. 19-60133

34

As to the third Gingles precondition—whether white bloc voting usually 

defeats the African-American community’s preferred candidate—the State 

asserts primarily that Plaintiffs’ evidence was flawed because it was based in 

part on the results of the 2015 senate election in District 22, which was not 

“properly conducted.” Plaintiffs explain that the State is referring to an 

election error that occurred in Bolivar County during the 2015 senate election 

when most voters in two of District 22’s fifty-two precincts were given ballots 

that did not include the District 22 election. 

The district court specifically addressed this issue in its decision. The 

district court noted that in the 2015 state senate election for District 22, 

“approximately 1,500 voters in Bolivar County received ballots for the wrong 

Senate race.”125 Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Palmer, agreed that this was a 

“significant election administration error,” which was why he decided to 

exclude those precincts in that race from his ecological inference analysis.126 

Dr. Palmer explained that his analysis “remain[ed] valid because EI identifies 

the pattern of behavior running through a series of elections over time.”127 The 

2015 election in District 22 still furnished fifty precincts from which to infer 

voter behavior, and other elections also furnished usable data. Furthermore, 

the State “presented no evidence indicating that Dr. Palmer’s approach was in 

error or would cast any shadow on his conclusions.”128 

Dr. Palmer testified that EI “is the process of extracting clues about 

individual behavior from information reported at the group or aggregate level.”

 

125 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 806.

126 As noted by the district court, EI analysis is widely recognized and accepted in 

voting cases. See, e.g., Terrebonne Par. Branch NAACP v. Jindal, 274 F. Supp. 3d 395, 433–

34 (M.D. La. 2017); Jamison v. Tupelo, Miss., 471 F. Supp. 2d 706, 710 (N.D. Miss. 2007); 

Houston v. Lafayette Cty., 20 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002 n.4 (N.D. Miss. 1998). 127 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 806.

128 Id.
No. 19-60133

35

He contended it is useful in voting cases because “the secret ballot hinders the 

[research] process and surveys in racially polarized contexts are known to be 

of little value.” Dr. Palmer further explained that EI “estimates the underlying 

propensity of each group to turn out for an election and to vote for a particular 

candidate using the estimation technique of maximum likelihood.” Dr. Palmer 

believed that EI was a superior statistical method to use in this case because 

it allowed him to run 100,000 simulations of each election in the sample, and 

provided valuable statistical checks, such as confidence intervals, on the 

results.

Dr. Palmer also testified that he used precinct-level voting and census 

data to analyze ten elections in District 22. The elections consisted of three 

“endogenous” elections—the 2003, 2007, and 2015 Senate District 22 elections, 

and seven “exogenous” elections—the 2003 Lieutenant Governor and 

Treasurer elections, the 2007 Insurance Commissioner election, the 2011 

Governor election, and the 2015 Governor, Secretary of State, and Agriculture 

Commissioner elections. The goal of the endogenous and exogenous 

comparisons was to see if findings were consistent between the Senate races 

and statewide races also held in odd years in District 22. All ten elections 

featured contests between white and African-American candidates. In all ten 

elections, the candidate preferred by African-American voters lost. Based on 

his analysis, Dr. Palmer appropriately concluded that white bloc voting usually 

defeats the African-American community’s preferred candidate in District 22. 

The district court found “Dr. Palmer’s thorough and largely unrebutted 

analysis to be persuasive.”129

By contrast, the State’s expert, Dr. Morrison, did not analyze any 

District 22 elections or the results of statewide elections among the voters of 

 

129 Id. at 807.
No. 19-60133

36

District 22. He looked only at county and municipal elections within District 

22’s territory, without attending to the demographic differences between those 

smaller jurisdictions and District 22. Basic errors also infected the data that 

he analyzed.130 Moreover, Dr. Morrison offered no opinion, critical or 

otherwise, on Dr. Palmer’s analysis. Dr. Morrison’s testimony thus did not 

rebut Dr. Palmer’s report in any meaningful respect.

On appeal, the State simply highlights the election administration error 

that occurred in the 2015 senate election for District 22. The State does not 

explain why Dr. Palmer’s method of accounting for the error—deleting the 

affected precincts from his analysis—was incorrect or undermined his analysis 

in any way. The State fails to show any clear error in the district court’s finding 

that District 22’s white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually 

to defeat the African-American preferred candidate. 

Based on the foregoing, the district court did not clearly err in 

determining that Plaintiffs met their burden of proving the three Gingles

preconditions.

D.

We next address the Senate factors, which are probative of the “totality 

of the circumstances” demonstrating a vote-dilution claim under § 2. The 

district court found persuasive the Plaintiffs’ evidence regarding Senate 

factors one (the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political 

subdivision), two (the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or 

political subdivision is racially polarized), five (the extent to which minority 

group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as 

education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate 

 

130 See id. at 805.
No. 19-60133

37

effectively in the political process), and seven (the extent to which members of 

the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction).131

As to factor one, the district court noted that “Mississippi plainly has a 

long history of official discrimination against African-Americans seeking to 

vote.” The district court credited the State for acknowledging this fact. As to 

factor two, the district court noted that Plaintiffs presented evidence, through 

Dr. Palmer’s testimony, that voting in District 22 features a “high level of racial 

polarization.” The district court further noted that the State’s expert also did 

not dispute this evidence.132

The fifth Senate factor focuses on the extent to which minority group 

members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, 

employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in 

the political process. As described above, the socioeconomic disparities 

between the white and African-American residents in District 22 are stark. 

They differ markedly by poverty rate, household income, educational

attainment, and other measures of privation and status. Considering the 

unique history of the Delta, there can be no question that these disparities 

reflect the effects of slavery and segregation.

The State argues that although Plaintiffs presented evidence that 

African Americans in District 22 trail white residents in socioeconomic 

 

131 The district court determined that factor three (voting practices or procedures that 

tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group) and factor 

four (the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes) were 

not relevant as neither side presented any evidence regarding those factors. Regarding factor 

six (the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns), the district court noted 

that the Plaintiffs did not present evidence of any recent racial appeals or of any racial 

appeals that would have had an effect on any District 22 election within the timeframe of the 

Plaintiffs’ case.

132 It is unclear whether the State disputes these factors on appeal. However, to the 

extent the State now attempts to dispute the first and second Senate factors, we find those 

issues waived based on the State’s failure to brief. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225.
No. 19-60133

38

categories, Plaintiffs “offered no proof to connect that fact to past 

discrimination.” The State further asserts that Plaintiffs did not prove that 

the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans in District 22 “hinder 

their ability to participate effectively in the political process.” As the district 

court observed, however, we have held that where socioeconomic disparities 

are shown and where the level of African-American political participation is 

depressed, § 2 plaintiffs “need not prove any further causal nexus between 

their disparate socioeconomic status and the depressed level of political 

participation.”133 At trial, the State acknowledged this law, both when moving 

for judgment at the close of Plaintiffs’ case and in closing arguments. The point 

the State now makes, that Plaintiffs did not offer evidence linking 

discrimination to depressed participation, thus is new on appeal, legally 

insignificant, and––in any event––belied by the record.

In this case, Plaintiffs went beyond the requirements of our law and were 

able to show a causal nexus between the disparate socioeconomic 

circumstances of African Americans in District 22 and their depressed level of 

political participation. Specifically, Plaintiff Lawson testified that in the Delta, 

many African-American voters are uneducated, reside in the rural areas, and 

have no transportation to travel to the polls. The district court noted that this 

evidence “is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition ‘that political 

participation by minorities tends to be depressed where minority group 

members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor 

employment opportunities, and low incomes.’”134

The State acknowledges that Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Palmer, presented a 

statistical estimate that African-American voter turnout in the 2015 Senate 

 

133 Teague, 92 F.3d at 294 (quoting League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 

4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 867 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc)). 

134 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 808 (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 69). 
No. 19-60133

39

election was 29.6%, while the white turnout was 36.9%. But the State asserts 

that the estimate was inaccurate because Dr. Palmer admitted that he had 

excluded from his analysis the precincts in Bolivar County in which voters 

were given the wrong ballots. This is the same challenge to Dr. Palmer’s 

analysis raised in the State’s challenge to the third Gingles precondition. As 

discussed above, the State presented no evidence indicating that Dr. Palmer’s 

approach was erroneous or would have cast any doubt on his conclusions. But 

in the context of voter turnout, the State argues that exclusion of the precincts 

was significant because the precincts included Delta State University, a 

predominantly white institution, and that college students are part of the 

voting age population in the census but notoriously unlikely to register and 

vote. The State submits that had those non-voting white students been 

considered in the turnout estimates, then white participation throughout 

District 22 would have fallen, making the difference between the percentage 

levels of white and African-American voter turnout not as great. But here 

again, the State can point to no evidence in the record supporting its 

supposition or in any other respect its challenge to Dr. Palmer’s conclusion of 

depressed African-American voter turnout.135 

The State additionally asserts that Census Bureau statistics show that 

the statewide African-American voter turnout has exceeded white voter 

turnout by one to ten percent in even-numbered years since at least 2004. 

Based largely on this information, the State’s expert, Dr. Morrison, opined that 

the existing socioeconomic differences no longer diminish African-American 

 

135 Of course, attorney argument is not itself evidence. See Foradori v. Harris, 523 

F.3d 477, 513 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Garza, 608 F.2d 659, 662–63 (5th Cir. 1979). 

The State asserts that it requested the district court to take judicial notice of the information 

on Delta State University, but the record shows the State never clearly did so. We thus need 

not conclusively resolve our doubt that the imputation of extra-record data into a complex 

quantitative analysis would be an appropriate exercise of judicial notice. 
No. 19-60133

40

participation in the political process as they did in the past. However, the data

used by Dr. Morrison had serious problems. It was self-reported, rather than 

based on official state records. It came from statewide elections, as opposed to 

District 22 elections, and from even-numbered years for federal elections

(including presidential election years), as opposed to odd-numbered years for 

state elections. Accordingly, the district court, assessing this trial testimony 

in the first instance, held that Dr. Morrison’s “data points fail to persuade” 

because “[t]hey look at the wrong jurisdiction, the wrong election years, and 

rely upon known issues with self-reported voting surveys—issues that 

[ecological inference], in contrast, seeks to overcome.” 

The district court’s conclusion that Dr. Palmer’s analysis of voter turnout 

held more probative value than the data used by Dr. Morrison is consistent 

with our previous direction.136 It is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

pronouncements in Gingles that § 2 vote dilution determinations “require[] an 

intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the contested electoral 

mechanisms.”137 

Finally, the seventh Senate factor—the extent to which members of the 

minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction—strongly 

favors Plaintiffs. No African American has been elected to the Mississippi 

Senate from District 22 in its previous or current form.

We find that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Senate 

factors one, two, five, and seven demonstrated that District 22, as drawn in the 

2012 legislative redistricting plan, resulted in African Americans’ having less 

 

136 See Operation Push, 932 F.2d at 412 (affirming district court’s decision to favor 

expert analysis of voter registration rates, based on official state records, over Census Bureau 

figures, due to unreliability of “uncorroborated self-reporting” and to “evidence 

demonstrating that black respondents to the [census] questionnaire overreported voter 

registration at a higher rate than white respondents”).

137 Gingles, 478 U.S. at 79 (internal quotations omitted).
No. 19-60133

41

opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political 

process and to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs proved the 

Gingles preconditions and presented persuasive evidence regarding several of 

the Senate factors, while the State scarcely entered any evidence to the 

contrary. 

The dissent acknowledges that § 2 of the VRA requires relief when a 

protected class has less opportunity to participate in the political process. Yet 

it turns a blind eye to the evidence produced by Plaintiffs showing the stark 

socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans in District 22 and how those 

circumstances have resulted in depressed voter turnout. Moreover, though the 

dissent states that “there are major disconnects among the district court’s 

findings,” and provides as an example “the minority turnout figures as well as 

minority electoral success in other races throughout the district,” the dissent 

provides no explanation for its vague contention. Instead, the dissent 

challenges the district court’s judgment in generalities and provides no 

analysis of the district court’s extensive factual findings and legal analysis 

supporting its judgment declaring District 22 violative of § 2.138

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in its 

ultimate finding of vote dilution. We further hold that the district court’s 

 

138 The dissent raises a similarly hazy contention about the district court considering 

District 22 “in a vacuum.” The nature of the criticism is unclear, partly because the dissent 

cites no caselaw that might identify a requirement the district court failed to meet. In any 

event, the trial record shows extensive testimony on District 23, the adjoining district from 

which Plaintiffs’ illustrative plans and the district court’s remedial plan drew voters. Indeed, 

all three experts testified about the effects on District 23 of changing District 22. The district 

court also followed the Supreme Court’s guidance that the existence of majority-minority 

districts “in substantial proportion to the minority’s share of voting age-population” should 

caution courts against creating more majority-minority districts. Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d 

at 808–09 (quoting Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1013 (1994)). The district court 

properly considered how changes to District 22 would affect Mississippi’s senate map as a 

whole.
No. 19-60133

42

conclusion that Plaintiffs were entitled to § 2 relief is fully supported by the 

record and not clearly erroneous.

V.

A.

The State argues that the district court erred in adopting Plaintiffs’ 

Illustrative Plan 1 to remedy the § 2 violation and requests that we vacate the 

district court’s injunction mandating its use. Plaintiffs contend that the State’s 

appeal as to this claim of error is moot. We agree. The unlawful 2012 

legislative plan, which necessitated the district court’s injunctive relief, was 

repealed by the Legislature in March 2019. Plaintiffs do not challenge the new 

plan. Although there is no question that the new plan governs the upcoming 

election, the State asserts that the district court’s injunction should be vacated 

because, if not, the State could be forced to operate under the court-ordered 

plan. That is simply inaccurate. The Mississippi Legislature fashioned the 

2019 plan in such a way that the only other redistricting plan that could 

possibly ever become effective is the original 2012 redistricting plan. In other 

words, no matter the resolution of the State’s appeal, the court-ordered plan 

will never become operative. The State’s request for relief from the district 

court’s injunction is therefore moot.

B.

Even though the district court’s remedial plan will not be used in any 

election because it has been replaced by the Legislature’s plan, the dissent 

objects to the court’s plan at length.139 The dissent is particularly “alarmed” 

that the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing before adopting 

Plan 1. These concerns are moot, because the Legislature’s plan is in place.140 

 

139 See Dissenting Op. at 4, 15–16, 19–20. 140 At most, these criticisms would get the State a more thorough remedial process or 

an opportunity to craft its own map. The State eventually obtained this relief anyway after 
No. 19-60133

43

We nevertheless clarify that there is nothing alarming or unprecedented about 

what the district court did. 

1.

We must set the facts straight—they bear repeating. In its February 16, 

2019 opinion following the bench trial, the district court unequivocally 

“decline[d] to order any specific relief while the Mississippi Legislature 

considers whether to redraw the District and extend the candidate 

qualification deadline.”141 The court added: “A hearing will be set for the near 

future.”142 Later, as the record shows, at the February 21 teleconference, the 

district court asked “whether the parties sought additional hearings and 

whether the defendants would be submitting their own Plan.”143 In response, 

“[t]he parties convinced the Court that no further hearings were necessary.”144 

And the “defendants said they would confer to be sure, then made no request 

at all.”145 So the dissent’s focus on this moot point is incorrect: The State did 

not want another hearing. 

Furthermore, the bench trial in this case in fact involved both the merits 

and remedies. The State “had ample opportunity to present evidence at the 

remed[ies]” portion of the trial.146 The State extensively cross-examined 

Plaintiffs’ expert, William Cooper, about his proposed plans during discovery 

and at trial. In fact, Cooper incorporated the State’s concerns and arguments

after discovery by proposing two additional plans.147 In Cooper’s opinion, 

 

the stay panel of our court gave the State another chance to redistrict. On this issue, it is not 

possible to grant the State “any effectual relief” beyond what it has already received. See 

Church of Scientology, 506 U.S. at 12. 

141 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 810.

142 Id. (emphasis added).

143 ECF Dkt. No. 85 at 1–2. 

144 Id. at 2 (emphasis added).

145 Id.

146 Cf. Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 94–95 (1997). 147 Thomas, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 795.
No. 19-60133

44

“District 22’s boundaries could be reconfigured to increase the BVAP while 

honoring traditional redistricting criteria and minimizing disruption to 

adjacent Districts” and while “increas[ing] the BVAP by at least 10 additional 

percentage points.”148 As a result of the trial evidence, the district court 

concluded that “[a]ll of Cooper’s illustrative plans satisfy traditional 

redistricting criteria. They are contiguous, reasonably compact, reasonably 

shaped, satisfy one-person one-vote, and do not dilute minority voting 

strength.”149 Moreover, the district court noted that the “incumbent Senator 

in District 23 remains in the same District.”150 Because the State later

declined the district court’s invitation for an additional hearing and had not 

presented a remedial plan, the district court adopted Cooper’s Plan 1 as the 

best plan presented. 

In approving the district court’s course of conduct, we draw guidance 

from Abrams v. Johnson. There, the Supreme Court upheld a district court’s 

remedial plan, which resulted from a joint bench trial and remedial hearing, 

against parties’ arguments that the district court should have held a further 

hearing on the court-drawn plan’s compliance with § 2.151 As the Court said 

there, “neither our precedents nor the [Voting Rights] Act require the court to 

hold a separate hearing on the adequacy under § 2 of a remedial plan.”152

 

148 Id. at 794.

149 Id. at 796.

150 Id.

151 521 U.S. at 94–95. The remedial map at issue in Abrams was court-drawn, 

following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of a Georgia congressional district as a racial 

gerrymander. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995). On remand, the district court held 

a bench trial to consider whether another district was a racial gerrymander as well, and it 

also considered remedial plans submitted by the parties. See Abrams, 521 U.S. at 82–85. 

The district court then created its own plan and declined to hold a hearing on its plan’s 

compliance with § 2 when intervenors raised the issue. Id. at 84–85, 94–95.

152 Id. at 94–95. The dissent relies on dicta in Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364 

(5th Cir. 1984) for authority that a hearing is required. Dissenting Op. at 15–16. To the 

extent that Jones stood for that proposition, we note that it predated the Supreme Court’s 

Abrams decision. Regardless, we do not read Jones the same way. Rather, its principal 
No. 19-60133

45

In sum, the district court did not pull a remedial plan out of thin air. The 

district court offered the Legislature the first opportunity to redraw District 

22. Yet the Legislature waited until after our motion panel denied a stay before 

it responded to the district court’s request for a remedial plan, which is now 

the operative plan. Therefore, the court-ordered plan is moot—and so is the 

State’s argument. 

2.

Finally, the dissent suggests that a race-conscious remedy to a Voting 

Rights Act violation infringes upon the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 

Protection Clause.153 The dissent, however, is once again asserting arguments 

never raised by the State154 and challenging the propriety of the district court’s

remedial plan, which is not before us. In any event, the Supreme Court in 

Abbott v. Perez has explained the interplay between the Equal Protection 

Clause and the Voting Rights Act as follows:

At the same time that the Equal Protection Clause restricts the 

consideration of race in the districting process, compliance with 

the Voting Rights Act pulls in the opposite direction: It often 

insists that districts be created precisely because of race. . . . In an 

effort to harmonize these conflicting demands, we have assumed 

that compliance with the VRA may justify the consideration of race 

in a way that would not otherwise be allowed.155 

 

concern was that the district court had imposed its own remedy before allowing the relevant 

legislative body a chance. Id. at 387. Our subsequent citations of Jones bear this out. See 

United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 435 (5th Cir. 2009); Rodriguez v. Bexar Cty., 385 F.3d 

853, 870 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court and the stay panel of our court gave the 

Mississippi Legislature that opportunity, which it took, so Jones poses no problem. Jones’s 

secondary concern was that district courts produce adequate records to enable appellate 

review. 727 F.2d at 387. As we explain, the district court saw to that here.

153 See Dissenting Op. at 5, 20–21. 154 Arguments not raised before the district court and in an appellant’s opening brief 

are waived. Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536, 544 (5th Cir. 2010); LeMaire v. La. Dep’t 

of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). 

155 Abbott, 138 S. Ct. at 2314–15 (citations omitted).
No. 19-60133

46

The Court further explains that in “technical terms,” it has assumed that 

compliance with the VRA is a “compelling state interest.”156 Therefore, 

contrary to the dissent’s assertion, race can be considered for remedying a § 2

violation.

VI.

Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment declaring that the 

redistricting plan adopted by the Mississippi Legislature in 2012 violates § 2 

of the Voting Rights Act, in that the boundary lines of District 22 dilute 

African-American voting strength and deprive African-American voters of an 

equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, is AFFIRMED. The 

State’s appeal of the district court’s judgment granting injunctive relief is 

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

 

156 Id.
No. 19-60133

47

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge, joined by W. EUGENE DAVIS, 

Circuit Judge, concurring:

I join fully in Judge Davis’s majority opinion. I write separately to 

elaborate on the law governing plaintiffs’ causal burden when the protected 

class they represent is a numerical majority in the challenged jurisdiction. 

Some ambiguity seemed to me to exist in our law, stemming primarily from 

our decision in Salas v. Southwest Texas Junior College District, 964 F.2d 1542 

(5th Cir. 1992).1

In Salas, our court placed a “difficult burden” on plaintiffs who represent 

a protected class comprising a majority in their district to explain why, despite 

their numbers, their preferred candidates lost elections and why the plaintiffs 

still warranted relief under § 2. Id. at 1555. This enhanced burden varies from 

longstanding § 2 caselaw, indeed, notably from our subsequent en banc 

decision in LULAC, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 866–67 (5th 

Cir. 1993), which specifies a less demanding approach. 

On further inspection, there is neither ambiguity nor tension, however. 

Salas’s “difficult burden” discussion is limited to the problem that its facts 

presented: “a registered voter majority” in the challenged jurisdiction. 964 F.2d

at 1555. A protected class that has navigated the practical obstacles of voter 

registration in enough numbers to be a majority naturally has a harder time 

explaining why it continues to lose elections. Here, however, it was not 

established that Appellees represent such a majority, because registered-voter 

data for Mississippi State Senate District 22 was not in the record. 

 

1 I offer this inquiry into Salas in a separate concurrence because Appellants clearly 

and repeatedly urged our court’s settled § 2 framework to the district court; indeed, they 

never briefed an argument on Salas to us and disclaimed its application at oral argument.
No. 19-60133

48

***

The Voting Rights Act is an exercise of Congress’s power to enact 

“appropriate legislation” enforcing the guarantees of the Fifteenth 

Amendment. See Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 536 (2013); Lopez 

v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 269 (1999); City of Rome v. United States, 

446 U.S. 156, 173 (1980); Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 535 (1973); 

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327 (1966). Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act prohibits any election practice or procedure “which results in a 

denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on 

account of race or color” or membership in a language minority group. 52 

U.S.C. § 10301(a). Denial or abridgment occurs if the “totality of the 

circumstances” shows that “the political processes leading to nomination or 

election . . . are not equally open to participation by members of [a protected 

class] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the 

electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of 

their choice.” Id. § 10301(b).

As explained in the majority opinion, Congress codified the § 2 results 

test in 1982, abrogating a Supreme Court decision two years earlier requiring 

a showing of discriminatory purpose. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 35 

(1986) (citing City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)); see THE LAW OF 

DEMOCRACY: LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS 603–54 (Samuel 

Issacharoff et al. eds., 4th ed., 2012).

In Gingles, the Court supplied the framework for redistricting challenges 

we still use today. There, it explained the “essence” of a § 2 claim: “that a 

certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical 

conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and 

white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” 478 U.S. at 47. As a guide 

to this inquiry, the Court endorsed a non-exclusive set of factors listed in the 
No. 19-60133

49

Senate committee report to the 1982 amendments and found in an earlier 

decision of this court. Id. at 36–37 & n.4 (citing Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 

1297 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc), aff’d sub nom. E. Carroll Parish Sch. Bd. v. 

Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976)). 

The fifth of these factors is “the extent to which members of the minority 

group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in 

such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to 

participate effectively in the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 37 (citing 

S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28–29 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206–

07). Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we developed a framework for 

plaintiffs to show the interaction between a challenged election practice, social 

and historical conditions, and unequal political opportunity. Plaintiffs must 

make three showings: past discrimination; socioeconomic disparities arising 

therefrom; and depressed political participation. See LULAC, Council No. 4434 

v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 866–67 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (citing S. Rep. No. 

97-417, at 29 n.114). Plaintiffs may show depressed political participation in 

the form of reduced voter registration, lower turnout, or “any other factor 

tending to show that past discrimination has affected [the protected class’s] 

ability to participate in the political process.” Id. at 867. Once discrimination, 

disparity, and depressed participation are shown, “plaintiffs need not prove 

any further causal nexus between their disparate socio-economic status and 

the depressed level of political participation.” Id. (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, 

at 29 n.114). 

We have used this framework consistently since then. See Veasey v. 

Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 258–61 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc); N.A.A.C.P. v. Fordice, 

252 F.3d 361, 367–68 (5th Cir. 2001); Teague v. Attala County, Miss., 92 F.3d 

283, 293–94 (5th Cir. 1996); Clark v. Calhoun County, Miss., 88 F.3d 1393, 

1399 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this framework, the fifth Senate factor does not 
No. 19-60133

50

favor plaintiffs when, for instance, the protected class’s voter turnout is no less 

than white voter turnout, Fordice, 252 F.3d at 368, or when plaintiffs fail to 

put on evidence of depressed political participation at all, LULAC, 999 F.2d at 

867. 

Appellants clearly and repeatedly urged this framework to the district 

court. At the close of Appellees’ case, Appellants moved for judgment on partial 

findings, challenging the sufficiency of Appellees’ evidence.2 Responding to the 

motion, counsel for Appellees cited the portion of Veasey v. Abbott explaining 

the framework.3 In rebuttal, counsel for Appellants concurred that the 

framework governed and conceded two of its three parts: 

The constitutional chain of events that must be proven in order for 

Section 2 to be constitutionally applied is that the state did 

something unconstitutional. And you have evidence before you 

that the state has done a few unconstitutional things over the 

years and that those things led to socioeconomic disadvantages for 

black folks. And you have evidence before you that black folks do 

suffer socioeconomic advantages in that case. And then what 

Veasey says, I believe, is that if you have those two things proven, 

then you may conclude that those things have caused the political 

participation disparities that you see. You don’t have to have proof 

of the causation; you may infer that causation.

Counsel then proceeded to the factual argument, reiterated to us on appeal, 

that Appellees’ evidence did not adequately show depressed political 

participation in the form of lower black turnout. At closing argument the next 

day, counsel for Appellants urged the same framework to the district court, 

again to set up an attack on Appellees’ evidence of depressed turnout.4

 

2 See FED. R. CIV. P. 52(c).

3 “[T]he case of Veasey v. Abbott . . . is a Fifth Circuit . . . en banc decision that says: If 

you have socioeconomic disparities and if you have lower African-American or lower minority 

turnout, that factor of the Senate Report factors is counted in favor of the plaintiffs in

analyzing the proof of whether there is vote dilution.” 4 “They absolutely have to prove that black political participation in the relevant area 

is depressed. And it’s certainly true that Veasey v. Abbott says that you may presume that a 
No. 19-60133

51

Our framework for establishing depressed political participation matters 

here because it is a compelling way to explain why a protected class 

constituting a bare majority in the challenged jurisdiction may nevertheless 

win relief under § 2. The facts in evidence showed that District 22 had a black 

voting-age majority just over 50% as of the 2010 Census, a turnout gap between 

black and white voters of roughly 10%, and a consistent single-digit margin of 

defeat for candidates preferred by black voters. Mississippi’s history of 

discrimination, recognized by our court,5 was conceded. The uncontroverted 

record showed stark socioeconomic disparity between black and white 

residents of District 22: five times the poverty rate; one-third the median 

household income; three times the high school dropout rate; three times the 

uninsured rate; and so on. Under both our law and common sense, and as the 

district court concluded, that record suffices to explain why the lines making 

up District 22 “interact[] with social and historical conditions to cause an 

inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their 

preferred representatives.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47.

This conclusion comports with our longstanding recognition that a 

protected class may constitute a numerical majority in the challenged 

jurisdiction but nevertheless obtain relief under § 2. See Salas, 964 F.2d at 

1547; Monroe v. City of Woodville, Miss., 881 F.2d 1327, 1333 (5th Cir. 1989); 

Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 1303. Other circuit courts share that recognition. See, e.g., 

Mo. St. Conf. of NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 894 F.3d 924, 934 

(8th Cir. 2018) (“[M]inority voters do not lose VRA protection simply because 

 

depressed political participation derives from past unconstitutional behavior, but you have 

to prove that political participation is presently depressed.” In keeping with the parties’ 

arguments, the district court appropriately applied this framework in its ruling on the merits. 

See Thomas v. Bryant, 366 F. Supp. 3d 786, 807–08 (S.D. Miss. 2019) (citing Teague, 92 F.3d 

at 294).

5 See, e.g., Fordice, 252 F.3d at 367; Teague, 92 F.3d at 293–94. 
No. 19-60133

52

they represent a bare numerical majority within the district.”); Pope v. County 

of Albany, 687 F.3d 565, 575 n.8 (2nd Cir. 2012) (“[T]he law allows plaintiffs to 

challenge legislatively created bare majority-minority districts on the ground 

that they do not present the ‘real electoral opportunity’ protected by Section 

2.”) (quoting LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 428 (2006)).

This conclusion comports also with LULAC v. Perry, in which the 

Supreme Court recognized that “it may be possible for a citizen voting-age 

majority to lack real electoral opportunity.” 548 U.S. at 428. Notably, the Court 

found there that a Texas congressional district violated § 2 where Latinos were 

“a bare majority of the voting-age population . . . but only in a hollow sense,” 

owing to the legal restriction of voting rights to citizens. Id. at 429.

Finding a § 2 violation despite a bare majority is likewise consistent with 

the Supreme Court’s admonition that we are to “take a ‘functional’ view of the 

political process and conduct a searching and practical evaluation of reality.” 

Gingles, 479 U.S. at 66 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 30 n.119). In that vein, 

when assessing how large a protected class must be to have equal political 

opportunity, the Court has spoken variously of “effective majorities,” Abbott v. 

Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2315 (2018) (quotation omitted); “a numerical, working

majority,” Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 13 (2009); and “an effective voting 

majority,” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1014 (1994).6 Finding a § 2 

violation despite a bare majority is consistent also with Abrams v. Johnson, 

 

6 It is useful here to distinguish the present case from two situations previously 

addressed by the Supreme Court: first, a protected class numerous enough to elect its 

preferred candidate despite not being a majority; and second, a protected class so numerous 

in one district that its voting strength in other districts is diluted. See Bartlett, 556 U.S. at 

14 (describing the first); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153–54 (1993) (describing the 

second). We are interested here in determining when a protected class becomes so numerous 

that it can no longer claim it has inadequate voting strength in the challenged district. 

Bartlett concerned the inverse––adequate voting strength despite low numbers. Voinovich 

concerned effects on voting strength in other districts, rather than the challenged one.
No. 19-60133

53

521 U.S. 74 (1997), in which the Court affirmed a district court’s remedial plan 

setting a congressional district’s black voting-age population (BVAP) “as close 

to 55% as possible” to ensure compliance with § 2 because, at 50% BVAP, black 

voters’ preferred candidates were more likely than not to lose. Id. at 94.7

New questions arise when registered-voter data enters the picture. In 

previous cases, it has often been true that a protected class made up a smaller 

share of registered voters than of voting-age population. See, e.g., Gingles, 478 

U.S. at 39 (fourteen-point gap between black and white voter registration 

rates); Teague, 92 F.3d at 294 (twenty-point gap). It cannot be assumed that a 

protected class comprising a majority of voting-age population also comprises 

a majority of registered voters. In the present case, as counsel for Appellants 

conceded, no voter-registration data for District 22 was in the record.8

But when voter-registration data is available, and it shows that the 

protected class is a registered-voter majority in the challenged jurisdiction, it 

becomes harder to contend that the protected class lacks political opportunity. 

See Salas, 964 F.2d at 1544. Salas concerned a junior college that conducted 

 

7 Similarly, decisions remedying § 2 violations regularly produce districts well above 

the 50% threshold. See, e.g., Large v. Fremont County, Wyo., 2010 WL 11508507, at *14 (D. 

Wyo. Aug. 10, 2010) (adopting remedial plan including district with 70% Native American 

voting-age population), aff’d, 670 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2012); Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 387 F. 

Supp. 2d 1035, 1041 (D.S.D. 2005) (creating remedial districts with 66% and 74% Native 

American voting-age population), aff’d, 461 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2006); Jeffers v. Clinton, 756 

F. Supp. 1195, 1198–1201 (E.D. Ark. 1990) (three-judge court) (creating remedial districts 

with 64%, 63%, 58%, and 55% BVAP), aff’d, 498 U.S. 1019 (1991). The same is true when 

courts remedy other districting violations and craft their remedial plans in view of § 2’s 

requirements. See, e.g., Navajo Nation v. San Juan County, 2017 WL 6547635, at *13 (D. 

Utah Dec. 21, 2017) (imposing remedial plan creating districts with Native American votingage populations of 63% and 64%, among others), aff’d, 929 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019); 

Adamson v. Clayton County Elections & Registration Bd., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357–58 & 

n.7 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (drawing districts in remedial plan with BVAP’s from 59% to 77%).

8 Such data evidently is not publicly available in Mississippi. See Oral Argument at 

8:10, Thomas v. Bryant (5th Cir. June 11, 2019) (No. 19-60133), 

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/19/19-60133_6-11-2019.mp3. The record 

contained only self-reported statewide Census data of voter registration, collected in even 

years, on which the district court appropriately did not rely, as the majority opinion explains. 
No. 19-60133

54

at-large elections for its governing board. Id. The Hispanic residents of the 

district were 63% of the population and 57% of the voting-age population, and 

the Spanish-surname voter-registration rate was 53%. Id. The parties 

evidently agreed that “Hispanics constitute[d] a slight majority of the 

registered voters in the District.” Id. 

We said in Salas that an “inquiry into causation” underlies the Gingles 

analysis. 964 F.2d at 1154. Is it the challenged district or election practice that 

“explain[s] the lack of electoral success of voters within the protected class,” or 

is it something else not cognizable under the Voting Rights Act? Id. This 

question is easier for plaintiffs to answer when, for instance, the protected class 

could be a working majority but is cracked apart. It is harder for them to 

answer when they have managed to register enough voters to constitute a 

majority and yet continue losing elections. The voter registration process 

presents one cluster of obstacles to the political participation of a protected 

class that bears the effects of discrimination. See Miss. State Chapter, 

Operation Push, Inc. v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991).9 How to explain 

a lack of electoral success when a majority in the jurisdiction has managed to 

clear those obstacles? 

In Salas, we suggested ways that plaintiffs might prove that their 

“registered voter majority is illusory”: evidence of inaccurate, or “soft,” voter 

rolls; evidence of other “practical impediments to voting,” like migratory work 

patterns at election time; or “low turnout at elections [that] was the result of 

 

9 In Operation Push, a § 2 challenge to Mississippi voter-registration statutes enacted 

in 1972, we noted Mississippi’s “long history of using voter qualifications and registration 

procedures to impede black citizens’ participation in the political process.” 932 F.2d at 402. 

We affirmed the district court’s finding of a twenty-five-point gap between black and white 

voter-registration rates in the state, “[b]ecause a significant percentage of Mississippi’s black 

citizens do not have (1) access to the transportation necessary to travel to the county 

courthouse to register, or (2) the type of jobs that would allow them to leave work during 

business hours to register to vote.” Id. at 403, 411–12.
No. 19-60133

55

prior official discrimination.” Id. at 1555–56. We then refined the plaintiffs’ 

required causal showing: plaintiffs should show “evidence directly linking this 

low turnout with past official discrimination.” Id. at 1556 (emphasis added). 

This might seem to be in tension with our holdings in LULAC and other cases 

that a causal nexus between discrimination, socioeconomic disparity, and 

depressed participation can be inferred once those three phenomena are 

shown. But reconciling Salas is simple. The protected class’s success at 

navigating the voter-registration process calls the inference of a causal nexus 

into question; hence, plaintiffs must produce more evidence to regain the 

preponderance.

Counsel for Appellees suggested at oral argument that our en banc 

decision in LULAC v. Clements overruled Salas.10 We certainly did not do so 

explicitly, and LULAC did not present the special problem of a registered-voter 

majority, nor has any case in our court ever since. Neither does this one. As 

noted, registered-voter data for District 22 was not in the record, so the 

problem confronted by Salas did not arise here. Moreover, Appellants passed 

on the many opportunities they had to argue that Salas should apply, 

acknowledging, instead, that the Veasey and LULAC framework controls.11

***

A suit under the Voting Rights Act is a complicated undertaking, 

drawing together long and often painful local histories, tightly contested 

stakes, intricate legal inquiries, and a deep desire for electoral fairness. 

Whatever addition to that complexity might have come from the question of 

Salas’s place in our law, I am hopeful this separate opinion may clarify it.

 

10 Oral Argument at 29:00, Thomas v. Bryant (5th Cir. June 11, 2019).

11 Appellants did not cite Salas in their briefing to us, and, when asked at oral 

argument to explain that decision, counsel for Appellants said only that it “has good language 

and bad language for both sides, which is why neither side brought it up.” Oral Argument at 

49:21, Thomas v. Bryant (5th Cir. June 11, 2019).
No. 19-60133

56

APPENDIX
No. 19-60133

57

DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

When President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, 

declaring that slaves in rebel states “are, and henceforward shall be free,”1 he 

remarked, “If my name ever goes into history, it will be for this act, and my 

whole soul is in it.”2 The war over America’s original sin waged another two 

years. The Great Emancipator lived to see the Union preserved, but just barely. 

Appomattox was Palm Sunday, and Ford’s Theatre was Good Friday. 

Earlier that week, President Lincoln had delivered a speech declaring 

his plans for peace and reconstruction. And perhaps healing would have taken 

hold under a second Lincoln term. But as it happened, the post-Lincoln 

American South was appallingly inhospitable to African-Americans.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, commanding that “[t]he 

right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by 

the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous 

condition of servitude,” and empowering Congress “to enforce this article by 

appropriate legislation.” But Congress’s first century of enforcement “can only 

be regarded as a failure”3 as southern states erected barriers galore to 

disenfranchise African-American citizens. The institution of slavery—

America’s foundational failing—had ended, but the legacy of slavery had 

endured. For black Americans in the South, it seemed ineradicable, and racial 

injustice inescapable.

 

1 The Emancipation Proclamation, NAT’L ARCHIVES, 

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation.

2 See Ronald G. Shafer, Lincoln Moved to End Slavery on New Year’s Day 1863. It 

Went On for Three More Years., WASH. POST (Jan. 1, 2019), 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/01/01/lincoln-declared-an-end-slavery-newyears-day-it-went-two-more-years/ (attributing this quotation to the moment before Lincoln 

signed the Emancipation Proclamation).

3 Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 197 (2009). 
No. 19-60133

58

Finally, in 1965, a full century after the Civil War ended, Congress 

passed the Voting Rights Act to make good on the promise of the Fifteenth 

Amendment by counteracting entrenched racial discrimination in voting. As 

the Supreme Court explained in upholding the VRA the year after it was 

enacted, Congress was aiming to combat “an insidious and pervasive evil which 

had been perpetrated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and 

ingenious defiance of the Constitution.”4 Section 2 of the VRA imposes a 

nationwide ban on voting discrimination, forbidding any “standard, practice, 

or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen 

of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”5

Nondiscrimination in voting is thus enshrined in the Constitution and 

laws of the United States. In my judgment, the Voting Rights Act is perhaps 

the noblest, most transformative legislation in American history.6 And it “has 

proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and 

integrating the voting process.”7

 

4 South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309 (1966).

5 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a).

6 See Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 895 (1994) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“The Act was 

immediately and notably successful in removing barriers to registration and ensuring access 

to the ballot. For example, in Mississippi, black registration levels skyrocketed from 6.7% to 

59.8% in a mere two years; in Alabama the increase was from 19.3% to 51.6% in the same 

time period. By the end of 1967, black voter registration had reached at least 50% in every 

covered State.” (citations omitted)); see also Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One, 557 U.S. at 

227 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[A]nd in Mississippi, black voter registration actually exceeded 

white voter registration by 1.5 percentage points.”).

7 Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 548 (2013); see also CHARLES S. BULLOCK III

& RONALD KEITH GADDIE, THE TRIUMPH OF VOTING RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH 323 (2009) (“The 

consensus is that the [VRA] has been inordinately successful.”); SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF ET AL.,

THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY: LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS 514–16 (4th ed. 

2012) (stating that “guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were 

essentially disregarded in many states” before the VRA, which “transformed American 

politics in a variety of ways”).
No. 19-60133

59

Also enshrined in American law is the broad power of States, “as 

provided in the Tenth Amendment . . . to regulate elections,”8 including the 

power to shape congressional and state legislative districts.9 Time and again, 

the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that electoral map-drawing “is primarily 

the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body, 

rather than of a federal court.”10 Why? Because drawing district lines is, to 

quote the Supreme Court, “a most difficult subject,”11 which is a G-rated way 

of describing a quintessentially political thicket besmeared with partisan 

point-scoring and one-upsmanship. Districting is the politics of politics. And 

the Framers, well acquainted with electoral maneuvering, wisely entrusted 

districting to political actors. Given the “complex interplay” of value-laden 

political forces at work, the Supreme Court says “the States must have 

discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing 

interests.”12 This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the 

integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.”13 States are 

sovereign political entities in their own right, and when it comes to political 

map-making, “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a 

serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”14 This is particularly 

true when elections are fast approaching. In such cases, a wealth of election-

 

8 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 461–62 (1991).

9 See Fitzgerald v. Green, 134 U.S. 377, 380 (1890) (“Congress has never undertaken 

to interfere with the manner of appointing [members of the electoral college], or, where 

(according to the now general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the 

state is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud 

in voting for electors, but has left these matters to the control of the states.”).

10 Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27 (1975); see also Thomas, 919 F.3d at 318–19 

(Clement, J., dissenting).

11 Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915 (1995).

12 Id. at 915–16.

13 Bond v. United Sates, 564 U.S. 211, 221 (2011).

14 Miller, 515 U.S. at 915.
No. 19-60133

60

law precedent counsels that it is often wiser for courts to push pause instead 

of fast-forward. 

To be sure, state prerogatives cannot override legal imperatives. As the 

Supreme Court recently recognized, “voting discrimination still exists; no one 

doubts that.”15 Maps must of course comply with both the Voting Rights Act 

and the Constitution, and courts undeniably have room to act swiftly when 

necessary. The issue in this case, though, is whether the district court’s order 

transgressed settled principles of federal election law. To my mind, it did—

alarmingly so.

* * *

Respectfully, but fervently, I dissent—for four main reasons:

1. The Supreme Court disapproves meddling in imminent 

elections.

2. The equitable defense of laches bars this suit.

3. The majority opinion’s novel § 2 theory contradicts Supreme 

Court precedent, the VRA’s plain text, and quite possibly the 

Fourteenth Amendment.

4. The jurisdictional issue may itself be dispositive, though that 

argument, admittedly, is more confounding than convincing.

In sum, I believe it offends ordinary principles of election law for a single 

federal district judge—with jarring haste, just days before the qualifying 

deadline, and without conducting a sufficient evidentiary hearing—to order 

redistricting after studying a majority-minority district, isolating its precise 

Black Voting Age Population (50.8%), and ordering a State to take explicitly 

race-conscious steps to increase that percentage (to 60.9%) . . . adding minority 

 

15 Shelby County, 570 U.S. at 536.
No. 19-60133

61

voters seemingly to ensure a minority winner and elevating outcome over 

opportunity. And the district court did all this absent any evidence (or even an 

allegation) of “cracking” or “packing” of the majority-minority population—the 

usual, Supreme Court-dictated ways of showing vote dilution under § 2.

The Equal Protection Clause’s “central mandate is racial neutrality in 

governmental decisionmaking,” including in the “drawing of [legislative] 

districts.”16 Thus, “race-based districting by our state legislatures demands 

close judicial scrutiny.”17 True, the Mississippi Legislature reconvened and 

reconfigured the district. But make no mistake—it did so under the Damoclean 

sword of a stay denial from a divided motions panel, all the while specifying, 

repeatedly, that it would very much prefer its original map.

Respectfully, the majority opinion defies the High Court’s federalismbased warnings in short-fuse election cases, endorses an inflated view of 

judicial power, and flouts the Constitution’s demand for racial neutrality.

I

The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against tinkering with 

looming elections. In Miller, the Court described judicial review of legislative 

line-drawing as “a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”18

Twenty years earlier in Chapman the Court stressed that “reapportionment is 

primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or

other body, rather than of a federal court.”19 And about a decade before that, 

the Court in Reynolds laid the foundation for short-runway election cases:

“[W]here an impending election is imminent and a State’s machinery is already 

in progress, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the 

 

16 Miller, 515 U.S. at 904–05.

17 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 657 (1993).

18 Miller, 515 U.S. at 915. 19 Chapman, 420 U.S. at 27.
No. 19-60133

62

granting of immediately effective relief in a legislative apportionment case, 

even though the existing apportionment scheme was found invalid.”20

We have heeded the Supreme Court’s admonition. In Veasey, we 

underscored the need “to carefully consider the importance of preserving the 

status quo on the eve of an election.”21 Concurring, Judge Costa registered his 

“extreme[] reluctan[ce] to have [the] election take place under a law that a 

district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory.”22 But 

even so, he continued, we “must follow the dictates of the Supreme Court.”23

And “the only constant principle that can be discerned from the Supreme 

Court’s recent decisions in this area is that its concern about confusion 

resulting from court changes to election laws close in time to the election 

should carry the day in the stay analysis.”24

Indeed, last-minute changes to district boundaries may cause more voter 

confusion than they cure. In vacating a Ninth Circuit injunction, the Supreme 

Court observed, “Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, 

can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain 

away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”25

Here, the district court found a VRA violation in mid-February 2019. At 

that time, a slew of election deadlines was fast approaching. Most notably, the 

qualification deadline was March 1. Roughly a week after its original 

decision—days before the qualifying period ended—the court imposed 

redistricting and moved the qualifying deadline back only two weeks. And in a 

 

20 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964).

21 Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014).

22 Id. at 896 (Costa, J., concurring).

23 Id.

24 Id. at 897 (citing North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N.C., 135 S. Ct. 6 

(2014) (Mem.); Husted v. Ohio State Conference of NAACP, 573 U.S. 988 (2014) (Mem.)).

25 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam).
No. 19-60133

63

separate order, the court created further uncertainty about district lines by 

encouraging the parties to collaborate on a new plan. This was days away from

the qualifying deadline and mere months before the primary and general 

elections. And lest you think that the election date is the only date that 

matters, the Supreme Court has cautioned that qualifying deadlines (or other

preliminary deadlines) “cannot be considered in isolation from the election of 

which [they] form[] a part.”26

This severely interfered with candidate registration, with the political 

process, and with the Legislature. Political candidates don’t jumpstart 

campaigns at the drop of a hat. Nor are legislatures designed to legislate with 

lickety-split haste—even in response to district court diktats.27 The status quo 

was preferable to federal-court intervention at the eleventh hour.

II

Laches bars this suit too. As the Supreme Court recently put it, laches 

“protect[s] defendants against ‘unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing 

suit.’”28 To assert laches, a defendant must show “(1) a delay in asserting a 

right or claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; and (3) that there was 

undue prejudice to the party against whom the claim is asserted.”29 Here, every 

 

26 NAACP v. Hampton Cty. Election Comm’n, 470 U.S. 166, 177 (1985).

27 The district court observed that “[a] stay would probably . . . be warranted if the 

Court was ruling on this case in September or October.” Given the nature of this case and 

the potential for en banc review, ongoing consideration of this matter into those months 

seems quite possible. Even if a stay was not appropriate in February (which I believe it was), 

it certainly seems appropriate now.

28 SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954, 

960 (2017) (quoting Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 667 (2014)); see also 

Am. Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321, 334 (5th Cir. 2008).

29 Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 549 F.2d 1021, 1026 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 (1977); see also Lopez v. Hale Cty., 797 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. 

Tex. 1992), aff’d, 506 U.S. 1042 (1993).
No. 19-60133

64

box is checked. The plaintiffs unreasonably delayed. And that delay prejudiced 

the State. The district court’s ruling otherwise was clear error.30

A

At bottom, the plaintiffs believed District 22 violated the law in 2012. As 

we explained in our 1998 Capece decision, “[t]he period for laches begins when 

the plaintiff knew or should have known of the infringement.”31 True, a district 

court has considerable discretion in applying laches. But it’s not unfettered 

discretion. That’s why our 1982 Armco decision reversed a district court for 

denying laches when it miscalculated the plaintiff’s delay as six years shorter 

than it actually was.32 Again, we emphasized that delay should be counted

from when the plaintiff should’ve known of the alleged violation.33 

Here, the plaintiffs could have sued in 2012, when the Department of 

Justice granted preclearance to the State’s districts. Indeed, Thomas

challenged District 22 in a letter to the Department of Justice in August 2012:

This letter is a request for the Department of Justice to look hard 

at the Mississippi Senate Redistricting plan. This plan has 

violated section 5 and 2 of the Voting Right Bill. Please look at 

District[s] 21, 22, [and] 34 . . . .

So Thomas himself admits that he knew every element of his claim in 2012. 

This actually goes beyond the laches standard, which is when the plaintiff 

should have known of the violation.34

 

30 Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 842 F.3d 883, 898 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(explaining that we review the district court’s findings of delay, unreasonableness, and 

prejudice for abuse of discretion—overturning only if there was clear error).

31 Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 205 (5th Cir. 1998); see also White 

v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1990) (stating that an inexcusable delay occurs when a 

party “discovers or with reasonable diligence could have discovered the facts giving rise to

his cause of action”).

32 Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., 693 F.2d 1155, 1161–62 (5th Cir. 1982).

33 Id. at 1161. 34 See Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 614 F.2d 474, 479 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[L]aches 

does not depend on subjective awareness of the legal basis on which a claim can be made.”).
No. 19-60133

65

The majority suggests that the State abandoned this timeframe on 

appeal, arguing that 2015, not 2012, was the operative date. Not true. That 

was merely an argument in the alternative. But all along, the State has 

contended that 2012 was the key date. Consider these excerpts from the State’s 

briefs on appeal:

• “Rejecting Thomas’s concerns, the DOJ precleared the [State’s] 

plan in September 2012. []Thomas waited. He did not file a 

Voting Rights Act challenge in 2012, 2013, or 2014.”

• “[T]he length of delay in this case is at least three years . . . .”

• “Instead of bringing suit in 2012 when the plan was adopted 

and precleared by DOJ or after the 2015 election, Thomas . . .

waited almost three additional years to commence this action.”

• “Under the ‘should have known’ test, they all ‘should have 

known’ in 2015. There is no doubt that, if not in 2012, then by 

the time of the 2015 election, any reasonable person would have 

known of the present cause of action.”

The 2015 window merely confirmed that, as in 2012, the plaintiffs had 

everything necessary for their § 2 claim. Waiting three years, much less six, 

was inexplicable for Thomas. By then, the district had progressed through 

preclearance and an election. 

Take another Voting Rights Act case currently moving through the 

courts: Chestnut v. Merrill, a recently decided case out of the Northern District 

of Alabama.35 The court held that laches barred the plaintiffs’ request for 

injunctive relief. The plaintiffs’ claims first became available when the state 

 

35 Chestnut v. Merrill, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (N.D. Ala. 2019).
No. 19-60133

66

redistricted, and based on that timeline, the court found that the plaintiffs had 

unreasonably delayed in suing Alabama.36

B

So have the plaintiffs here. They dawdled—then dawdled some more. 

And this was highly prejudicial. To the State, who was thwarted from 

redistricting according to the wishes of its elected representatives. And also to 

voters. Even the majority concedes that eleventh-hour changes “will inevitably 

cause disruption.” 

Indeed, this suit has injected pointless confusion into the electoral 

process. Voters should know what district they live in and who they are voting 

for. Candidates should know their potential constituency. Instead, the district 

court strong-armed the State into a slap-dash redistricting plan. This suit 

began in 2018 and wasn’t decided until 2019. And next year there’s a census. 

So the State will doubtless have to redistrict again.

Returning to the Alabama district court in Chestnut, the court there 

sensibly barred the VRA claim since “forc[ing] the state of Alabama to 

redistrict twice in two years—once based on nine-year-old census data—would 

result in prejudice.”37 A Florida district court held likewise in 1999, applying 

laches.38 The defendants asserted that they were prejudiced by delay because 

“voters [had] come to know their districts and candidates, and [would] be 

confused by change”; and because “requiring redistricting [then], before the 

2000 census [would] result in two redistrictings within a two year period, with 

 

36 Id. at 1314–18.

37 Id. at 1317.

38 Fouts v. Harris, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999), aff’d sub nom. Chandler 

v. Harris, 529 U.S. 1084 (2000) (Mem.).
No. 19-60133

67

resulting voter confusion, instability, dislocation, and financial and logistical 

burden on the state.”39

Clearly, as the Fourth Circuit has pointed out, “there is large potential 

for disruption in reapportioning with undue frequency.”40 But that’s not the 

only prejudice. The plaintiffs hamstrung the State by creating a nighimpossible timetable for effectively litigating. The plaintiffs’ late filing date 

forced the State, at the taxpayers’ expense, to expedite each facet of this case. 

The Legislature had to quickly enact a new district map, without the 

substantial deliberation that redistricting requires. This urgency stymied the 

State’s ability to fully litigate its own preferred, democratically enacted plan, 

which inherently prejudiced the State. Laches should bar this case.

For the same reason, this case—as the majority opinion correctly holds—

is not moot. As the Supreme Court explained seven years ago in Knox, a case 

“becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant ‘“any effectual 

relief” whatever to the prevailing party.’”41 Here, Mississippi wants its old 

districts back. 

III

Turning to the § 2 merits analysis:

Nothing in the Voting Rights Act requires proportional representation. 

The statute states so unequivocally: “[N]othing in [§ 2] establishes a right to 

have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion 

to the population.”42 The VRA explicitly disavows the maximization of minority 

electoral success and explicitly emphasizes electoral participation and 

 

39 Id.

40 White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 104 (4th Cir. 1990).

41 Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (quoting Erie 

v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000)).

42 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).
No. 19-60133

68

opportunity. Section 2 tells us to look to “the totality of the circumstances” to 

determine if “members of a racial group . . . have less opportunity . . . to 

participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their 

choice.”43

Both Congress and the Supreme Court have emphasized this. Congress 

requires plaintiffs to show that the political process isn’t “equally open to 

participation by members of a [protected] class . . . [because] members have 

less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate . . . .”44 And 

the Supreme Court noted 25 years ago in De Grandy that “the ultimate right 

of § 2 is equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for 

minority-preferred candidates of whatever race.”45 Thus, a viable § 2 claim 

must show unequal opportunity. The Supreme Court explained how to do this 

only a year later in Shaw.46 A § 2 plaintiff can allege that a state either 

“fragment[ed] politically cohesive minority voters among several districts or 

pack[ed] them into one district or a small number of districts.”47 That is, § 2 

can be violated if a state “cracks” racial minorities among many districts 

(making them an ineffective minority of voters) or “packs” them into few 

districts (making them an excessive majority of voters)—weakening their 

overall voting power.

The State argues that plaintiffs from a majority-minority population

cannot bring a § 2 claim at all. Our precedent, as Judge Higginson notes in his 

 

43 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 425 (2006) 

(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b)).

44 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b) (emphasis added).

45 Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1014 n.11 (1994).

46 Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 914 (1996).

47 Id.; see also Thomas, 919 F.3d at 318–19 (Clement, J., dissenting).
No. 19-60133

69

concurrence, suggests they can.48 We held in Salas that members of a 

registered voter majority class are not barred, “as a matter of law,” from 

bringing a vote-dilution claim.49 Obtaining relief, however, turns on proof.50

And that’s the real question: the standard of proof. The law lacks clarity as to 

what exactly a protected-class plaintiff must show in order to prevail on a votedilution claim when they are already part of the majority in the district. 

This much is clear, however: No court has ever ruled that a majorityminority district violates § 2 in isolation. The two dilutive tactics recognized by 

the Supreme Court—packing and cracking—necessarily cross district lines, 

which necessarily requires courts to examine electoral ripple effects, which 

necessarily demands painstaking statistical analysis spanning multiple 

districts to ferret out the siphoning of minorities’ voting power.51 How can a 

court conclude that a specific district violates § 2 without scrutinizing whether 

and how the minority vote has been manipulated across various districts? I am 

unaware of any court decision holding that a majority-minority district can 

violate § 2 in a vacuum, all by itself, unaccompanied by evidence—or even an 

allegation—of packing or cracking.52

 

48 Salas v. Sw. Tex. Jr. Coll. Dist., 964 F.2d 1542, 1547 (5th Cir. 1992) (“We first 

consider whether plaintiffs, as members of a registered voter majority class, are precluded, 

as a matter of law, from bringing a vote dilution claim. We hold that they are not.”).

49 Id. at 1547. Judge Higginson’s concurrence forthrightly and correctly identifies an 

unresolved tension in our caselaw that bears directly on the unusual situation presented 

here: How must a majority-minority population in a single-member district show § 2 

causation in the absence of packing or cracking of the majority-minority population?

50 See id.

51 See, e.g., Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 154 (1993) (“[W]e have recognized that 

‘[d]ilution of racial minority group voting strength may be caused’ either ‘by the dispersal of 

blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters or from the 

concentration of blacks into districts where the constitute an excessive majority.’” (quoting 

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 n.11 (1986))).

52 The majority opinion, in footnote 118, attributes to me this assertion: “The dissent 

. . . insists that no court has ever found that a majority-minority district violated § 2.” Not 

exactly. My precise point is that no court I’m aware of has ever found such a violation absent 

allegations and evidence of packing and cracking and attendant multi-district statistical 
No. 19-60133

70

No such evidence was presented here. Indeed, the complaint (neither 

original nor amended) never mentions “packing” or “cracking.” But it did 

mention that District 22 needed “a significantly increased black voting age 

population,” specifically “60% rather than the existing 50.8%.” And the 

evidence, such as it was, focused solely on District 22, not on any adjoining 

districts.

Yes, the majority opinion is right to emphasize the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Gingles.53 But the Gingles factors are mere thresholds for a dilution 

claim.54 They’re not the test itself. Nor is “totality of the circumstances” the 

entirety of the text from the statute.55 It’s true that since Gingles, district-court 

findings profoundly influence redistricting law. District courts must engage in 

a close, fact-specific analysis of voting patterns. Yet in this case, there are

major disconnects among the district court’s findings. These disconnects make 

 

analysis. See discussion infra n.51 & accompanying text. For support, the majority opinion 

points to several cases. Respectfully, the cited cases underscore, rather than undermine, my 

point.

Every single case includes discussion of packing, cracking, and multi-district electoral 

consequences. First, Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004). Literally, the 

first sentence in that opinion: “Plaintiffs contend that South Dakota’s 2001 legislative 

redistricting plan dilutes . . . by packing . . . in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965.” Id. (emphasis added). Second, there’s LULAC, discussed later in this dissent, which 

had to do with an illusory majority, not an actual one. See discussion infra nn.64–66 & 

accompanying text. Third, there’s Perez v. Abbott, 253 F. Supp. 3d 864 (W.D. Tex. 2017). True, 

one sliver of that order did not discuss packing or cracking. But the overall case was a 

sprawling challenge to Texas’s entire congressional redistricting plan. As such, it 

necessitated intensive statewide and multi-regional analysis (“South/West Texas area,” 

“Dallas–Ft. Worth area,” and “Houston area”). The order is chock-full of cross-district 

number-crunching and discussion of plaintiffs’ claims of packing and cracking. Indeed, 

variations of the word “pack” appear 44 times, and “crack” 42 times. Finally, fourth, there’s 

Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov’t Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840, 854–58 (E.D. Wis. 

2012). And here too, the decision analyzes whether there had been packing and cracking. See 

id. at 848, 856.

53 Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 48–49.

54 Id.

55 Contra Thomas, 919 F.3d at 309 (discussing the “totality of the circumstances” 

language from § 2 but neglecting to mention the rest of the sentence that the phrase is from).
No. 19-60133

71

the decision hard to understand—for example, the minority turnout figures as 

well as minority electoral success in other races throughout the district. Plus, 

under the district court’s adopted plan, the only declared opposition candidate 

to Thomas was redistricted out of the district.

It’s also troubling that the district court imposed Plan 1—the first 

plaintiff-proposed redistricting plan—without conducting a sufficient 

evidentiary hearing or even explaining itself.56 The court’s cursory, one-page 

order adopting the plan never justifies why Plan 1 was superior to Plans 2 and 

3; or why Plan 1 was the narrowest remedy. The only discussion of the plans’ 

details appears in the district court’s liability opinion, which devotes just three 

pages to describing them. Compare that to our 1984 decision in Jones.57 There, 

we noted that even in an expedited situation, a district court must conduct an 

evidentiary hearing, make specific factual findings, or otherwise produce a 

record sufficient for appellate review.58

The Supreme Court’s later decision in Abrams v. Johnson in no way 

absolves the district court from that obligation.59 In that case, the district court 

conducted a full-dress remedial hearing, and the Supreme Court considered 

what evidence was presented there and subject to cross-examination.60 The 

appellants complained because the district court, having already held a 

remedial hearing, did not hold yet another hearing about whether the court’s 

own plan satisfied § 2.61

 

56 See Thomas, 919 F.3d 298 at 318 (Clement, J., dissenting).

57 Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364, 387 (5th Cir. 1984).

58 Id.

59 521 U.S. 74 (1997). 60 Id. at 89 (“The ACLU plans were introduced at the remedial hearing . . . . [T]he 

Justice Department submitted the plan after the close of evidence, and in consequence its 

demographer could not be cross-examined on the question of racial motivation . . . .”); id. at 

92–95.

61 Id. at 94–95.
No. 19-60133

72

It also bears mentioning: In its remedy order, the district court in 

Abrams contributed 28 pages to the Federal Supplement,62 whereas the 

district court here mustered only one. Reliance on Abrams thus seems 

misplaced.

Nor did representations during the February 21, 2019 telephone 

conference obviate a hearing. Although the call transcript doesn’t seem to be 

in the record, the district court later summarized that the State didn’t ask for 

a hearing. But what matters isn’t what the State desires but what the law 

requires. A court poised to impose a remedial redistricting plan has its own 

obligations when deciding time-sensitive, consequential elections cases, 

including producing for the appellate court a factually supported evidentiary 

basis for its decision.63 The two-day liability trial, one-page order, and threepage liability opinion nowhere explain why the court chose Plan 1.

Yet the majority opinion ignores these red flags. Instead, it cherry-picks 

quotations to create a new rule for determining § 2 violations: whether a 

protected class has an “effective” or “working” majority. This essentially means 

that if a minority population is roughly 50–59% of the district population, 

district lines must afford them more than a mere “opportunity” to elect their 

preferred candidate. They’re entitled to something close to recurring success.

 

62 Johnson v. Miller, 922 F. Supp. 1556, 1556–86 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 1995) (totaling 28 

pages—of which 11 explained the court’s reasoning and 17 contained tables and data backing

up that reasoning).

63 See Jones, 727 F.2d at 387 (“While it may be clear to us that the district court—with 

at least the acquiescence, if not the connivance, of the parties—believed that the proceedings 

merited expedited treatment, the procedures, if challenged, would have required that we 

vacate this order. For the sake of future courts, we reiterate briefly some of the principles 

that the district court should bear in mind. . . . For us to pass on the propriety of the district 

court’s action, we must have either specific fact findings or, at least, a record sufficient to 

allow review. Without hearings, and without findings addressed to the government body's 

plan, we would not be in a position to determine whether the district court properly exercised 

its discretion in rejecting the City’s plan.” (emphasis added)).
No. 19-60133

73

To support this new rule, the majority hangs its hat on the Supreme 

Court’s 2006 LULAC decision. There, the Court recognized that “it may be 

possible for a citizen voting-age majority to lack real electoral opportunity.”64

But that case is drastically different. LULAC dealt with a Latino-majority 

district in which many Latinos weren’t citizens and thus couldn’t vote.65 So the 

Court granted § 2 relief since the Latino majority was a “hollow” one.66

Yet what the majority opinion holds today is far beyond that. Its resultsoriented focus transforms the Voting Rights Act landscape. To see how, first 

consider the existing caselaw. On the one hand, the Supreme Court’s 2009 

Bartlett decision tells us that if a protected class is a numerical minority but 

politically successful, courts may not step in.67 On the other hand, the Court’s 

1993 Voinovich decision tells us that if a protected class is “so numerous” in 

one district that it dilutes minority voting power in another district, that’s 

“packing” which requires judicial correction.68 Add to that this decision: A 

minority voting-age population slightly north of 60% is necessary to secure § 2 

rights.

So putting all this together—a minority voting age population under 50% 

is okay if the protected class is politically successful; but not okay if the 

protected class is too much below 50% and politically unsuccessful; and still 

not okay if the unsuccessful majority-minority VAP is above 50% but below 

60%.

This blinkered focus on outcomes rather than opportunity clashes with 

the VRA’s express text and relevant caselaw, both of which underscore 

 

64 LULAC, 548 U.S. at 428.

65 Id. at 429.

66 Id.

67 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 13 (2009).

68 Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 153.
No. 19-60133

74

electoral participation and opportunity—not electoral success. Again, § 2 offers 

relief where it is shown that the political process preceding the election is “not 

equally open to participation by members of a [protected class] . . . in that its 

members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to 

participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their 

choice.”69 The majority opinion effectively requires electoral success. But the 

statutes and caselaw focus on genuine opportunity. Not guaranteed victory. 

For contrast, let’s revisit the Alabama district court case Merrill. The 

plaintiffs adequately alleged vote dilution by claiming improper “cracking” and 

“packing.”70 They argued that increasing the Black Voting Age Population in 

one district from 58.33% to 60.91% was “packing.”71 Instead, the Legislature 

should’ve created a second majority-minority district.72

Now reconsider this case. Rather than argue that the BVAP is unfairly 

diffused across several districts or unfairly packed into one, the plaintiffs 

simply say that their district could be drawn to afford them a bigger majority 

than they currently have. Ironically, under this logic, dividing an AfricanAmerican population into as many majority-minority districts as possible 

would violate the VRA. Instead, the plaintiffs’ demands are tantamount to 

guarantees of electoral wins in each such district. 

The project of judicial oversight in § 2 cases is one of ensuring equal 

opportunity, not dictating winners. It is unfitting for the judiciary to intervene 

and put a thumb (or anvil) on the electoral scale where nondiscriminatory 

factors may play a role in preventing a majority of a protected-class minority 

from electing their preferred candidate. Absent evidence that the voting-age, 

 

69 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).

70 Merrill, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1311. 

71 Id.

72 Id.
No. 19-60133

75

protected-class majority status is hollow (e.g., LULAC73) or illusory (e.g., 

Salas74)—that is, the majority isn’t actually a majority at all—nothing in the 

VRA confers special solicitude on a majority that happens to be a protected 

class. 

Article III judges should take Article I lawmakers at their word: 

“[N]othing in [§ 2] establishes a right to have members of a protected class 

elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”75 Every 

American citizen, including members of protected classes, must compete for 

electoral success. Yet the district court and today’s majority opinion favor 

something approaching proportional representation, which the text of the VRA 

categorically rejects. And it implies that any minority candidate who loses an 

election in a majority-minority district can sue under § 2—before a single 

judge, without an evidentiary hearing, and on the eve of key election 

deadlines—to get the district lines redrawn to his advantage. 

This misstep is compounded by the fact that the district court never 

considered or addressed the impact of its actions on the neighboring district at 

all. Redistricting requires a holistic view, including inter-district ripple effects. 

The dissent from the motions-panel decision ably demonstrates why these 

types of § 2 claims must examine the impact, including potential vote dilution, 

on neighboring districts.76 It is virtually impossible to discern why the district 

court preferred one plan over another. Given the district court’s failure to 

develop and explain the facts relevant to its adoption of Plan 1, including the 

effect that boosting the BVAP of one district would have on the BVAP of 

 

73 LULAC, 548 U.S. at 428–29.

74 Salas, 964 F.2d at 1547.

75 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).

76 See Thomas v. Bryant, 919 F.3d 298, 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (Clement, J., 

dissenting).
No. 19-60133

76

adjacent districts, how can there be meaningful appellate review? The district 

court’s cursory statement that none of the plans “dilute minority voting 

strength” cannot substitute for an actual, real-world assessment of the effect 

of choosing this plan over others.

All in all, I share the substantive objections explained in the dissent to 

the motions-panel’s refusal to stay the map ordered by the district court.77 And 

where “the ultimate finding of dilution” is based on “a misreading of the 

governing law,” there is reversible error.78

Beyond these § 2-related qualms, I have one more: the district court’s 

overt race-conscious remedy. The district court—again, without a sufficient 

evidentiary hearing, with no analysis, and just days before the qualifying 

deadline—engaged in unconcealed race-based districting to boost the BVAP 

from 50.8% to 60.91%. Such a remedy would seem to run headlong into the 

Fourteenth Amendment. 

A federal judge cannot command what the Constitution condemns. As 

noted above, the Equal Protection Clause’s “central mandate is racial 

neutrality in governmental decisionmaking,” including in the “drawing of 

[legislative] districts.”79 When the Department of Justice adopted a policy

requiring states to design districts based on race, the Supreme Court in Miller 

v. Johnson excoriated it as not only “quite far removed from [the VRA’s] 

purpose” but also potentially unconstitutional.80 The Department of Justice’s 

“implicit command that States engage in presumptively unconstitutional racebased districting brings the [VRA] . . . into tension with the Fourteenth 

 

77 See generally id. (Clement, J., dissenting). 

78 De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1022.

79 Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904–05 (1995).

80 Id. at 926.
No. 19-60133

77

Amendment.”81 “It takes a shortsighted and unauthorized view of the Voting 

Rights Act to invoke that statute, which has played a decisive role in redressing 

some of our worst forms of discrimination, to demand the very racial 

stereotyping the Fourteenth Amendment forbids.”82

The district court ignored these reprimands. It was concerned that 

District 22’s BVAP was too low. Apparently believing that 61.98% is better 

than 50.77%, the district court redrew the district. Even if the VRA required 

race-based districting in this case, the district court didn’t explain why so much 

racial discrimination was necessary. Nor did the district court explain how its 

explicitly race-conscious remedy could comport with the Fourteenth 

Amendment and the narrow tailoring commanded by Miller. This is hardly the 

stuff of “close judicial scrutiny.”83

IV

Finally, a vexing jurisdictional issue lingers: whether 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2284(a), which requires the convening of a three-judge district court, applies 

when a plaintiff confines his suit to § 2 alone. The statute reads:

A district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an 

action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the 

apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of 

any statewide legislative body.84

There are two ways to interpret this:

• (1) the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional 

districts; or (2) the apportionment of any statewide legislative 

body.

 

81 Id. at 927.

82 Id. at 927–28.

83 Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657.

84 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) (emphasis added).
No. 19-60133

78

or

• (1) the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional 

districts; or (2) the constitutionality of the apportionment of 

any statewide legislative body.

Citing recent Supreme Court dicta,85 the majority opinion opts for the latter 

interpretation. 

The Supreme Court indeed suggested in dicta that § 2284(a) requires a 

three-judge panel only for constitutional challenges.86 But that dictum was a 

mere explanatory parenthetical in a citation to the proceedings below. So 

regardless of which is the better interpretation, there seems to be a live 

statutory question. Yet the majority opinion deals the competing argument 

short shrift.

The competing argument invokes the series-qualifier canon.87 The 

general rule under that canon: “When there is a straightforward, parallel 

construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or 

postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series.”88 The exception is 

that a determiner repeated before the next element in the series generally 

means no carryover modification.

The State contends that the exception applies. Why? The statute says:

the constitutionality of congressional districts or the state legislative bodies. 

Not: the constitutionality of congressional districts or state legislative bodies. 

 

85 Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 136 S. Ct. 1301, 1306 (2016).

86 Id. (characterizing, in a single parenthetical, § 2284(a) as “providing for the 

convention of such a court whenever an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of 

apportionment of legislative districts”).

87 See generally ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW § 19 (2012).

88 Id. § 19, at 147.
No. 19-60133

79

Here, “the” is a determiner. It’s a subtle but important distinction. Consider 

this excerpt from Reading Law:

To make certain that the postpositive modifier does not apply to each

item, the competent drafter will position it earlier:

• Societies that are charitable in nature or institutions.

• A fence that is solid or a wall.

• A partnership registered in Delaware or a corporation.89

Now contrast that with these weaker yet synonymous examples:

• An institution or a society that is charitable in nature (any 

institution probably qualifies, not just a charitable one).

• A wall or a fence that is solid (the wall may probably have 

gaps).

• A corporation or a partnership registered in Delaware (the 

corporation may probably be registered anywhere).90

Then return to our statute, § 2284(a): “the constitutionality of the 

apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide 

legislative body.”

You’ll notice that the modifier—“constitutionality”—not only has an 

intervening determiner, it’s also at the very beginning of the series. This 

suggests that § 2284(a) might require the convening of three-judge district 

courts even for purely statutory challenges to the apportionment of any 

statewide legislative body.

That said, the series-qualifier canon is “highly sensitive to context”—

“[o]ften the sense of the matter prevails.”91 It’s possible that the drafters may 

 

89 Id. § 19, at 149.

90 Id.

91 Id. § 19, at 150. To muddy the linguistic waters further, perhaps the series-qualifier 

canon doesn’t apply at all. Some readers might find it odd to describe the statute as creating 

a “series” for which “constitutionality” is a modifier. Their instinct may be to ask instead 

whether the “or” separates:
No. 19-60133

80

well have understood “constitutionality” to modify the entire sentence. It would 

make sense, then, that no court has gone the other way on this issue in the 

years since the law’s passage.92 All to say, this is a nettlesome issue that 

warrants closer study. 

V

As noted above, I share the substantive critiques expressed in the dissent 

to the motions-panel denial in March of the State’s stay request.93 But one final 

issue merits discussion: this court’s seeming inability to reconsider that stay 

denial en banc. The plaintiffs regard the supposed impossibility of en banc 

review as a feature, not a bug. I disagree. Indeed, this case illustrates the point. 

The State has now lost in front of the merits panel, and neither this court 

sitting en banc nor the Supreme Court ever had an opportunity to review the 

divided motions-panel decision. In my view, this inflicts lasting harm upon 

Article III and our federal structure.

Recap:

A single federal district judge purported to redraw the State of 

Mississippi’s voting maps. Then a motions panel of this court denied the State’s 

request for a stay. On March 26, 2019, the State introduced Joint Resolution 

 

• two alternative objects of the preposition “of” (“challenging the 

constitutionality of [1] the apportionment of congressional districts or [2] 

the apportionment of any statewide legislative body”), or

• two alternative objects of the participle “challenging” (“challenging [1] the 

constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or [2] the 

apportionment of any statewide legislative body”).

92 Another factor complicating the interpretation of § 2284(a) is that it isn’t clear 

anyone originally thought there could be non-constitutional challenges to apportionment. See 

Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 923 (1994) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment) (concluding 

that §2 protects ballot access, not ballot weight, and that “vote dilution” claims fall outside 

the text’s focus on “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or 

procedure”).

93 See generally Thomas, 919 F.3d at 316 (Clement, J., dissenting) 
No. 19-60133

81

202.94 That resolution expressly references the stay order three times.95 The 

State recognized that our order compelled it to conduct emergency 

redistricting. It dutifully completed that task on March 29. Yet in passing the 

joint resolution, Mississippi specified—repeatedly—that it would like to have 

its old districts back if it prevailed on appeal.96 

One might ask, “Well, if a majority of the court thought the order denying 

the stay was wrong, why didn’t they take it en banc and fix it?” Answer: 

because a majority of our court thinks we are legally prohibited from taking an 

“interim” decision en banc.

Where might such a prohibition come from? It’s certainly not in the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 35 says a majority of a circuit’s 

judges “may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by 

the court of appeals en banc.”97 And our operating procedures say “[a]ny active 

member of [our] court . . . may request a poll,” whether or not the parties ask 

for one themselves.98 It’s hard to imagine how the proceedings before the panel, 

which as a matter of constitutional necessity comprised a case or controversy,99

could not also be a “proceeding” under Rule 35. And they’re certainly part of 

the larger “appeal” currently before our court.100 

Perhaps that’s why our fellow circuit courts routinely entertain en banc 

petitions over appeals or proceedings like this one.101 If the Federal Rules 

 

94 S.J. Res. 202, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2019). 

95 Id. at 1, 24, 25. 

96 See id. at 24–25.

97 FED. R. APP. P. 35(a) (emphasis added). 

98 5TH CIR. I.O.P. foll. 35.6. 

99 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.

100 See Thomas v. Bryant, No. 19-60133, ECF No. 1 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2019).

101 See Feldman v. Ariz. Sec’y of State’s Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (en 

banc) (motion to stay pending appeal); In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888, 892–93 (8th Cir. 2014) 

(en banc) (motion to vacate discovery orders); Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 

285, 286 (4th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Shedd, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) 
No. 19-60133

82

prohibited en banc consideration of such motions, the prohibition would apply 

in our sister circuits as much as it would in ours. But it doesn’t.

One thing that might differentiate our court from others is our nonpublic “Internal Court Policies.” Might those prohibit us from reconsidering an 

“interim” decision en banc? Again, no. I cannot quote our internal policies 

because they are stamped: “NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION.” But I don’t 

need to quote them to prove nonpublic “rules” aren’t rules at all. That’s partly 

why the Supreme Court once vacated a Ninth Circuit decision “refus[ing] 

completely to consider the merits of [an] en banc request.”102 Because the Ninth 

Circuit’s en banc procedures were not “clearly explained” for “the members of 

the court and litigants,” the Supreme Court reinstated the party’s en banc 

petition.103 If our private rule really is the rule, it’s not explained at all—much 

less clearly. A rule we apply and yet never disclose is worse than a rule posted 

“high on the columns so that [it] would be harder to read and easier to 

transgress.”104

Even if our private policy purported to prevent us from reconsidering an 

“interim” decision en banc, we’d be prohibited from following it. The other half 

of the Supreme Court’s holding in Western Pacific shows why: Although the 

circuit courts have wide latitude in establishing their en banc procedures, at 

an irreducible minimum it is “essential that litigants be left free to suggest to 

the court . . . that a particular case is appropriate for consideration by all the 

judges.”105 Thus, completely independent of the Ninth Circuit’s obligation to 

 

(motion to stay pending removal); Rakovich v. Wade, 834 F.2d 673, 673–74 (7th Cir. 1987) 

(en banc) (motion to stay pending appeal). 

102 W. Pac. R.R. Corp. v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 247, 265–67 (1953). 

103 Id. at 266–67. 

104 Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175, 1179 

(1989) (describing “Nero’s nasty practices”).

105 345 U.S. at 261 (emphasis added). 
No. 19-60133

83

establish clear rules, whatever rules that court adopted could not prevent the 

mere suggestion that a given case “is an appropriate one for the exercise of the 

[en banc] power.”106 So too here.107

All of this makes complete sense if we consider the premise that 

underlies review by something less than the full court. Whether sitting as a 

three-judge panel or as a single judge, whenever the judges of this court act 

(other than when we’re sitting en banc), we act as agents of the full court.108 A 

panel’s decision is “no more than an initial exercise of the power that 

ultimately resides only with the whole court.”109

That accords with the notion that our panels can issue binding 

precedent. Three judges, who act on behalf of all of us, can issue a decision that 

binds all of us precisely because there is a mechanism that allows the full Court 

to revisit that decision.110 As wrong as it is, the order denying a stay in this 

case is now published in the Federal Reporter, and it establishes Fifth Circuit 

precedent on the workings of stay applications.111 But if the full court cannot 

take it en banc, then perhaps the other members of this court—who never had 

the opportunity to reject or bless what the panel did here—should not be bound 

 

106 Id. at 268.

107 See BRYAN A. GARNER ET AL., THE LAW OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT 496 (2016) 

(“Although a court of appeals is almost never required to grant en banc consideration, it 

cannot eliminate en banc review.” (emphasis added)).

108 See Douglas H. Ginsburg & Donald Falk, The Court En Banc: 1981–1990, 59 GEO.

WASH. L. REV. 1008, 1011–13 (1991); Tom S. Clark, A Principal-Agent Theory of En Banc 

Review, 25 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 55, 76 (2008). 

109 16 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 3981.3 n.7 

(4th ed. 2018). 

110 See United States v. Am.-Foreign S.S. Corp., 364 U.S. 685, 689–90 (1960); 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 43(b), 46(c), 451. 

111 See generally Thomas, 919 F.3d 298.
No. 19-60133

84

by it in a future case.112 Which, of course, invites chaos as each motions panel 

becomes a law unto itself. 

If that weren’t enough, consider the source of the panel’s authority to do 

what it did here. Appellate Rule 8 does not expressly confer power; it regulates 

a power conferred somewhere else. The power to stay a district court decision 

pending appellate review derives from the All Writs Act.113 As an en banc court, 

we have revisited panel decisions exercising (or refusing to exercise) our AllWrits power before.114 How odd if we lack the ability to consider, as an en banc 

court, exercises of the same power—simply because they involve a motion for 

a stay.

I can imagine two responses. First, some might worry that permitting 

review of “interim” decisions opens the floodgates for en banc review of trivial 

matters. I agree with half of that. Most of the procedural matters the judges of 

this court decide on a daily basis do not merit en banc rehearing. But that 

proves too much. There is no serious risk that we will begin granting en banc 

petitions to rehear a decision denying an extension of time to file a brief. Selfdiscipline still counts for something.

Second, some might wonder if this is really that big of a deal given the 

State chose emergency redistricting over petitioning our court for rehearing. 

We should hardly be surprised by that. As the dissent from the stay denial 

 

112 See N.C. Utils. Comm’n v. FCC., 552 F.2d 1036, 1045 (4th Cir. 1977) (concluding 

three-judge panel could ignore prior panel’s opinion where en banc review was impossible); 

see also id. at 1056 n.1 (Widener, J., dissenting) (agreeing because “[o]therwise, many 

subjects would be relatively frozen”).

113 See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426–27 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)); United 

States v. Lynd, 301 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1962); FED. R. APP. P. 8 advisory committee note 

(1967). 

114 See, e.g., In re Unknown, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (considering 

whether to grant writ of mandamus); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 

2008) (en banc) (same); United States v. Denson, 603 F.3d 1143 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc) 

(same). 
No. 19-60133

85

pointed out, we apparently told the parties they cannot seek en banc 

reconsideration of a motion panel’s denial of a stay. (Though we’ve never 

explained why.) That left only one option—conducting an emergency 

redistricting proceeding under the Damoclean sword of a federal court order. 

In my view, that’s a shabby way to treat a sovereign State. And in all events, 

even if the State didn’t want us to take this case en banc, we have an 

independent obligation to get the law right. Every time. That’s why, at the 

dawn of en banc rehearing practice, judges routinely initiated the call for en 

banc rehearing.115 

I firmly believe every one of my colleagues strives to get the right answer 

when he or she sits on a panel or rules on a single-judge motion. But we all 

make mistakes. By not taking the stay denial en banc, we shirked our duty to 

correct a serious mistake. Not because this case is unimportant, and not 

because we’re unconvinced a grievous mistake was committed. But rather 

because we’ve convinced ourselves that our hands are tied. I hope, in time, we’ll 

recognize that’s a mistake too. 

* * *

I deeply admire my colleagues’ solicitude for the Voting Rights Act. More, 

I share it. But respectfully, I believe the majority opinion oversteps (our 

judicial power in election cases), overlooks (the VRA’s opportunity-notoutcomes emphasis on racial neutrality), and overrides (the State of 

Mississippi’s broad sovereign power to regulate its elections within the bounds 

of the law). 

Allowing the district court’s legally imaginative analysis to take 

precedential root invites more of the same. Lawyers are nothing if not 

entrepreneurial. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision 

 

115 See Ginsburg & Falk, supra note 107, at 1013. 
No. 19-60133

86

in 2013, scholars swiftly urged “courts, in partnership with the Department of 

Justice, [to] reform section 2 so that it fills much of the gap left by the Supreme

Court’s evisceration of section 5.”116 Certainly, this district court’s novel take 

on § 2 will, unless checked, induce other last-minute—and thus perhaps 

unreviewable—redistrictings. The specter of such gamesmanship is precisely 

why the Supreme Court has warned against eleventh-hour interference with 

time-sensitive election processes.

Summing up: 

The district court should never have heard this case in the first place. 

The Supreme Court consistently denounces such last-minute tinkering, and 

laches is itself determinative. As for the knotty jurisdictional question, I 

concede uncertainty. But not on the § 2 merits, where the district court, rather 

clearly, prescribed what is proscribed.

Respectfully, I dissent.

 

116 Christopher S. Elmendorf & Douglas M. Spencer, Administering Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act After Shelby County, 115 COLUM. L. REV. 2143, abstract (2015). This article 

urges courts to give § 2 “special bite” such that “section 2 can be made to function like 

erstwhile section 5 in the post-Shelby County world.” Id. at 2147.