Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 91.0

46 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

IV 
  These  cases  are  not  close.    The  plaintiffs  did  not  prove 
that Alabama’s districting plan “impose[s] or applie[s]” any 
“voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
practice, or procedure” that effects “a denial or abridgement 
of  the[ir]  right  . . .  to  vote  on  account  of  race  or  color.”  
§10301(a).    Nor  did  they  prove  that  Alabama’s  congres-
sional  districts  “are  not  equally  open  to  participation”  by 
black Alabamians.  §10301(b).  The plaintiffs did not even 
prove that it is possible to achieve two majority-black dis-
tricts without resorting to a racial gerrymander.  The most 
that  they can  be said to  have  shown  is  that  sophisticated 
mapmakers can proportionally allocate Alabama’s congres-
sional districts based on race in a way that exceeds the Fed-
eral Judiciary’s ability to recognize as a racial gerrymander 
with the naked eye.  The District Court held that this show-
ing, plus racially polarized voting and its gestalt view of Al-
abama’s racial climate, was enough to require the State to 
redraw its districting plan on the basis of race.  If that is 
the benchmark for vote dilution under §2, then §2 is noth-
ing more than a racial entitlement to roughly proportional 
control  of  elective  offices—limited  only  by  feasibility—
wherever different racial groups consistently prefer differ-
ent candidates. 
  If that is what §2 means, the Court should hold that it is 
unconstitutional.  If that is not what it means, but §2 ap-
plies  to  districting,  then  the  Court  should  hold  that  vote-
dilution challenges require a race-neutral benchmark that 
bears  no  resemblance  to  unconstitutional  racial  registers.  
On the other hand, if the Court believes that finding a race-
neutral benchmark is as impossible as much of its rhetoric 
suggests, it should hold that §2 cannot be applied to single-
member  districting  plans  for  want  of  an  “objective  and 
workable standard for choosing a reasonable benchmark.”  
Holder, 512 U. S., at 881 (plurality opinion).  Better yet, it 
could adopt the correct interpretation of §2 and hold that a