Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 101

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

(Shaw II); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 920 (1995).1 
  Because  non-predominance  is  a  longstanding  and  vital 
feature of districting law, it must be honored in a Gingles 
plaintiff ’s illustrative district.  If race predominated in the 
creation of such a district, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy 
both our precedent, which requires “reasonably configured” 
districts,  and  the  terms  of  §2,  which  demand  equal  open-
ness.  Two Terms ago, we engaged in a close analysis of the 
text of §2 and explained that its “key requirement” is that 
the  political  processes  leading  to  nomination  or  election 
must  be  “ ‘equally  open  to  participation’  by  members  of  a 
protected class.”  Brnovich v. Democratic National Commit-
tee, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 6, 15) (quoting 52 
U. S. C. §10301(b); emphasis deleted).  “[E]qual openness,” 
we stressed, must be our “touchstone” in interpreting and 
applying that provision.  594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15). 
  When the race of one group is the predominant factor in 
the creation of a district, that district goes beyond making 
the  electoral  process  equally  open  to  the  members  of  the 
group in question.  It gives the members of that group an 
advantage that §2 does not require and that the Constitu-
tion  may  forbid.    And  because  the  creation  of  majority- 
minority districts is something of a zero-sum endeavor, giv-
ing an advantage to one minority group may disadvantage 
others. 

C 
  What all this means is that a §2 plaintiff who claims that 
a districting map violates §2 because it fails to include an 
additional majority-minority district must show at the out-
set that such a district can be created without making race 
the predominant factor in its creation.  The plaintiff bears 
both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion 

—————— 

1 Alabama’s  districting  guidelines  explicitly  incorporate  this  non- 
predominance  requirement.    See  Singleton  v.  Merrill,  582  F. Supp.  3d 
924, 1036 (ND Ala. 2022).