Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

10 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Opinion of the Court 

“where minority and majority voters consistently prefer dif-
ferent  candidates”  and  where  minority  voters  are  sub-
merged in a majority voting population that “regularly de-
feat[s]” their choices.  Ibid. 
  To succeed in proving a §2 violation under Gingles, plain-
tiffs must satisfy  three  “preconditions.”    Id.,  at  50.    First, 
the  “minority  group  must  be  sufficiently  large  and  [geo-
graphically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasona-
bly configured district.”  Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin 
Elections  Comm’n,  595  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2022)  (per  curiam) 
(slip op., at 3) (citing Gingles, 478 U. S., at 46–51).  A dis-
trict will be reasonably configured, our cases explain, if it 
comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being 
contiguous and reasonably compact.  See Alabama Legisla-
tive  Black  Caucus  v.  Alabama,  575  U. S.  254,  272  (2015).  
“Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is 
politically cohesive.”  Gingles, 478 U. S., at 51.  And third, 
“the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white 
majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat 
the minority’s preferred candidate.”  Ibid.  Finally, a plain-
tiff  who  demonstrates  the  three  preconditions  must  also 
show, under the “totality of circumstances,” that the politi-
cal process is not “equally open” to minority voters.  Id., at 
45–46; see also id., at 36–38 (identifying several factors rel-
evant  to  the  totality  of  circumstances  inquiry,  including 
“the  extent  of  any  history  of  official  discrimination  in  the 
state . . . that touched the right of the members of the mi-
nority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate 
in the democratic process”). 
  Each  Gingles  precondition  serves  a  different  purpose.  
The first, focused on geographical compactness and numer-
osity, is “needed to establish that the minority has the po-
tential  to  elect  a  representative  of  its  own  choice  in  some 
single-member district.”  Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40 
(1993).  The second, concerning the political cohesiveness of 
the minority group, shows that a representative of its choice