Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

districting plans as dilutive relative to a nonneutral bench-
mark “would result in a substantial increase in the number 
of mandatory districts drawn with race as ‘the predominant 
factor motivating the legislature’s decision,’ ” thus “ ‘raising 
serious constitutional questions.’ ”  Id., at 21–22 (first quot-
ing  Miller,  515  U. S.,  at  916,  then  quoting  LULAC,  548 
U. S., at 446).  To avoid setting §2 on a collision course with 
the Constitution, courts must apply a race-neutral bench-
mark in assessing any claim that a districting plan unlaw-
fully dilutes a racial minority’s voting strength. 

B 
  The plaintiffs in these cases seek a “proportional alloca-
tion of political power according to race.”  Holder, 512 U. S., 
at 936 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  According to the 2020 cen-
sus, black Alabamians account for 27.16% of the State’s to-
tal population and 25.9% of its voting-age population, both 
figures slightly less than two-sevenths.  Of Alabama’s seven 
existing congressional districts, one, District 7, is majority-
black.7  These cases were brought to compel “the creation of 
—————— 

7 District 7 owes its majority-black status to a 1992 court order.  See 
Wesch  v.  Hunt,  785  F. Supp.  1491,  1493–1494,  1496–1497,  1501–1502 
(SD Ala.), aff ’d sub nom. Camp v. Wesch, 504 U. S. 902 (1992).  At the 
time, the Justice Department’s approach to preclearance under §5 of the 
Act  followed  the  “so-called  ‘max-black’  policy,”  which  “required  States, 
including Alabama, to create supermajority-black voting districts or face 
denial of preclearance.”  Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 
575 U. S. 254, 298 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).  Although Wesch was 
a  §2  case  and  the  court-imposed  plan  that  resulted  was  not  subject  to 
preclearance, see 785 F. Supp., at 1499–1500, there can be little doubt 
that a similar ethos dominated that litigation, in which all parties stip-
ulated to the desirability of a 65%-plus majority-black district.  See id., 
at 1498–1499.  To satisfy that dubious need, the Wesch court aggressively 
adjusted the northeast and southeast corners of the previous District 7.  
In  the  northeast,  where  District  7  once  encompassed  all of  Tuscaloosa 
County and the more or less rectangular portion of Jefferson County not 
included in District 6, the 1992 plan drew a long, thin “finger” that trav-
ersed the southeastern third of Tuscaloosa County to reach deep into the