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

14 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Opinion of the Court 

e.g.,  Supp.  App.  164–173.    But  this  Court  has  never  held 
that  a  State’s  adherence  to  a  previously  used  districting 
plan can defeat a §2 claim.  If that were the rule, a State 
could immunize from challenge a new racially discrimina-
tory redistricting plan simply by claiming that it resembled 
an old racially discriminatory plan.  That is not the law: §2 
does not permit a State to provide some voters “less oppor-
tunity  . . .  to  participate  in  the  political  process”  just  be-
cause the State has done it before.  52 U. S. C. §10301(b). 
  As to the second and third Gingles preconditions, the Dis-
trict Court determined that there was “no serious dispute 
that Black voters are politically cohesive, nor that the chal-
lenged districts’ white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc 
to  usually  defeat  Black  voters’  preferred  candidate.”    582 
F. Supp.  3d,  at  1016  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  
The Court noted that, “on average, Black voters supported 
their  candidates  of  choice  with  92.3%  of  the  vote”  while 
“white  voters  supported  Black-preferred  candidates  with 
15.4% of the vote.”  Id., at 1017 (internal quotation marks 
omitted).    Plaintiffs’  experts  described  the  evidence  of  ra-
cially  polarized  voting  in  Alabama  as  “intens[e],”  “very 
strong,” and “very clear.”  Ibid.  Even Alabama’s expert con-
ceded “that the candidates preferred by white voters in the 
areas that he looked at regularly defeat the candidates pre-
ferred by Black voters.”  Id., at 1018. 
  Finally, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs had 
carried their burden at the totality of circumstances stage.  
The Court observed that elections in Alabama were racially 
polarized; that “Black Alabamians enjoy virtually zero suc-
cess in statewide elections”; that political campaigns in Al-
abama had been “characterized by overt or subtle racial ap-
peals”; and that “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant 
racial and voting-related discrimination is undeniable and 
well documented.”  Id., at 1018–1024. 
  We see no reason to disturb the District Court’s careful 
factual findings, which are subject to clear error review and