Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 23

16 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Opinion of the Court 

Section  2  requires  that  the  political  processes  be  “equally 
open.”  §10301(b).  What that means, the State asserts, is 
that the State’s  map cannot  impose  “obstacles or  burdens 
that  block  or  seriously  hinder  voting  on  account  of  race.”  
Brief for Alabama 43.  These obstacles do not exist, in the 
State’s  view,  where  its  map  resembles  a  map  that  never 
took  race  into  “account.”    Ibid.    Second,  Alabama  argues 
that  the  Gingles  framework  ends  up  requiring  racial  pro-
portionality in districting.  According to the State, Gingles 
demands that where “another majority-black district could 
be drawn, it must be drawn.”  Brief for Alabama 71 (empha-
sis deleted).  And that sort of proportionality, Alabama con-
tinues, is inconsistent with the compromise that Congress 
struck, with the text of §2, and with the Constitution’s pro-
hibition on racial discrimination in voting. 
  To  apply  the  race-neutral  benchmark  in  practice,  Ala-
bama  would  require  §2  plaintiffs  to  make  at  least  three 
showings.  First, the illustrative plan that plaintiffs adduce 
for the first Gingles precondition cannot have been “based” 
on race.  Brief for Alabama 56.  Second, plaintiffs must show 
at  the  totality  of  circumstances  stage  that  the  State’s  en-
acted  plan  diverges  from  the  average  plan  that  would  be 
drawn without taking race into account.  And finally, plain-
tiffs must ultimately prove that any deviation between the 
State’s plan and a race-neutral plan is explainable “only” by 
race—not, for example, by “the State’s naturally occurring 
geography and demography.”  Id., at 46.   
  As we explain below, we find Alabama’s new approach to 
§2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice.  We accord-
ingly decline to recast our §2 case law as Alabama requests. 

A 
1 
  Section 2 prohibits States from imposing any “standard, 
practice,  or  procedure  . . .  in  a  manner  which  results  in  a 
denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote