Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 73

28 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

  In reality, the limits of the Gingles preconditions and the 
aimlessness of the totality-of-circumstances inquiry left the 
District Court only one obvious and readily administrable 
option: a benchmark of “allocation of seats in direct propor-
tion to the minority group’s percentage in the population.”  
Holder, 512 U. S., at 937 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  True, as 
disussed  above,  that  benchmark  is  impossible  to  square 
with  what  the  majority  calls  §2(b)’s  “robust  disclaimer 
against  proportionality,”  ante,  at  5,  and  it  runs  headlong 
into grave constitutional problems.  See Parents Involved in 
Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 
701, 730 (2007) (plurality opinion).  Nonetheless, the intui-
tive pull of proportionality is undeniable.  “Once one accepts 
the proposition that the effectiveness of votes is measured 
in terms of the control of seats, the core of any vote dilution 
claim” “is inherently based on ratios between the numbers 
of the minority in the population and the numbers of seats 
controlled,”  and  there  is  no  more  logical  ratio  than  direct 
proportionality.    Holder,  512  U. S.,  at  902  (opinion  of 
THOMAS, J.).  Combine that intuitive appeal with the “lack 
of any better alternative” identified in our case law to date, 
id.,  at  937,  and  we  should  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
proportionality generally explains the results of §2 cases af-
ter the Gingles preconditions are satisfied.  See E. Katz, M. 
Aisenbrey,  A.  Baldwin,  E.  Cheuse,  &  A.  Weisbrodt, Docu-
menting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Since 1982, 39 U. Mich. 
J. L.  Reform  643,  730–732  (2006)  (surveying  lower  court 
cases  and  finding  a  near-perfect  correlation  between  pro-
portionality findings and liability results). 
  Thus,  in  the  absence  of  an  alternative  benchmark,  the 
vote-dilution  inquiry  has  a  strong  and  demonstrated  ten-
dency  to  collapse  into  a  rough  two-part  test:  (1)  Does  the 
challenged districting plan give the relevant minority group 
control of a proportional share of seats?  (2) If not, has the 
plaintiff shown that some reasonably configured districting