Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Syllabus 

misplaced because those maps do not accurately represent the district-
ing process in Alabama.  Regardless, the map-comparison test that Al-
abama proposes is flawed in its fundamentals.  Neither the text of §2 
nor the fraught debate that produced it suggests that “equal access” to 
the fundamental right of voting turns on technically complicated com-
puter  simulations.    Further,  while  Alabama  has  repeatedly  empha-
sized that HB1 cannot have violated §2 because none of plaintiffs’ two 
million odd maps contained more than one majority-minority district, 
that (albeit very big) number is close to irrelevant in practice, where 
experts  estimate  the  possible  number  of  Alabama  districting  maps 
numbers is at least in the trillion trillions.   
  Alabama would also require plaintiffs to demonstrate that any devi-
ations between the State’s enacted plan and race-neutral alternatives 
“can be explained only by racial discrimination.”  Brief for Alabama 44 
(emphasis added).  But the Court’s precedents and the legislative com-
promise struck in the 1982 amendments clearly rejected treating dis-
criminatory intent as a requirement for liability under §2.  Pp. 22, 25–
30. 

(d) The  Court  disagrees  with  Alabama’s  assertions  that  the  Court 
should stop applying §2 in cases like these because the text of §2 does 
not apply to single-member redistricting and because §2 is unconstitu-
tional as the District Court applied it here.  Alabama’s understanding 
of §2 would require abandoning four decades of the Court’s §2 prece-
dents.  The Court has unanimously held that §2 and the Gingles frame-
work  apply  to  claims  challenging  single-member  districts.    Growe  v. 
Emison,  507  U. S.  25,  40.    As  Congress  is  undoubtedly  aware  of  the 
Court’s construction of §2 to apply to districting challenges, statutory 
stare  decisis  counsels  staying  the  course  until  and  unless  Congress 
acts.  In any event, the statutory text supports the conclusion that §2 
applies to single-member districts.  Indeed, the contentious debates in 
Congress  about  proportionality  would  have  made  little  sense  if  §2’s 
coverage was as limited as Alabama contends.   
  The Court similarly rejects Alabama’s argument that §2 as applied 
to  redistricting is  unconstitutional  under  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  
The Court held over 40 years ago “that, even if §1 of the [Fifteenth] 
Amendment prohibits only purposeful discrimination,” City of Rome v. 
United States, 446 U. S. 156, 173, the VRA’s “ban on electoral changes 
that are discriminatory in effect is an appropriate method of promoting 
the purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment,” id., at 177.  Alabama’s con-
tention that the Fifteenth Amendment does not authorize race-based 
redistricting as a remedy for §2 violations similarly fails.  The Court is 
not persuaded by Alabama’s arguments that §2 as interpreted in Gin-
gles exceeds the remedial authority of Congress.   
  The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that