Opinion ID: 6321649
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the voting rights act memos

Text: Plaintiffs have focused on the two memos discussed during the closed session: (1) “Voting Rights Act,” dated October 14, 2021, and (2) “The History of Discrimination in the State of Michigan and its Influence on Voting,” dated October 26, 2021. We have no information about what is in those memos, but the context that surrounded their development matters. On October 11, 2021, as required by § 6(9), the Commission published its proposed plans and held a series of required public hearings to solicit comment from the public about the proposed plans. Following the publication of the proposed plans, some people criticized choices the Commission made to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Some specifically threatened a lawsuit. At the October 20, 2021 public hearing in Detroit, multiple public commenters identified the prospect of litigation against the Commission, variously stating how the maps “may not pass the Voting Rights Act” and warning how “lawsuits are coming.” Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC), 10/20/2021 1:00 pm Public Hearing, pp 11, 34, available at (accessed December 19, 2021) [https://perma.cc/E44J-8ZTT]. A lawyer and law professor implored the Commission “to take the time to get it right” or “look forward to a robust and vigorous constitutional fight.” Id. at 105. The executive director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights also appeared and told the Commission that “the department believes that the maps presented by this Commission violate Federal civil rights law.” Id. at 65. The Department of Civil Rights later issued a statement repeating its executive director’s assertion that there was a 19 need to “rectify the Voting Rights Act violations inherent in the maps under consideration” and submitted its own legal analysis of what the Voting Rights Act required. Michigan Department of Civil Rights, News Release, MDCR Director John E. Johnson to MICRC: Proposed Electoral Maps “Fail the Test” of Preserving the Voice of Michigan Minorities, available at (accessed December 19, 2021) [https://perma.cc/5KCU-DE5X]. It was this public outcry—and the specific threat of litigation—that led to the Commission’s decision to confer with its attorneys and review its attorneys’ memos in that closed session on October 27, 2021. The Commission wanted its attorneys’ advice about whether its proposed plans could withstand legal scrutiny. MICRC, 10/27/2021 1:00 p.m. Meeting, p 10, available at (accessed December 19, 2021) [https://perma.cc/H7VJ-43AF]. 12 This is precisely the type of communication that lawyers give clients in confidence. The majority’s rule will mean that the Commission will not have legal representation to mitigate risk and that its foes can prepare legal challenges privately with their counsel while observing all the legal strategy provided to the Commission. The voters wanted the Commission to succeed; they didn’t want a different rigged system. 12 At least one commissioner was persuaded that it was appropriate for the Commission to enter into closed session to discuss privileged legal advice because he recognized it is “a common tool used in redistricting” and “was used significantly in Arizona.” MICRC, 10/27/2021 1:00 p.m. Meeting, p 10. Other commissioners reasonably reflected that there was a fear of the unknown and a need to trust counsel’s legal advice. Id. 20 I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Const 1963, art 4, § 6(9), which states that “the commission shall publish the proposed redistricting plans and any data and supporting materials used to develop the plans,” requires disclosure of privileged documents. The interpretative work to understand what “supporting materials” means is simple because the constitutional text is clear. By focusing only on two words, the majority ignores the rest of § 6(9), which explicitly defines what materials the Commission must provide when publishing its proposed plans: Each of the proposed plans shall include such census data as is necessary to accurately describe the plan and verify the population of each district, and a map and legal description that include the political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and townships; man-made features, such as streets, roads, highways, and railroads; and natural features, such as waterways, which form the boundaries of the districts. The Constitution does not say that the “supporting materials” include privileged materials, and the common-law rule is that they would not. Section 6(14)(b), which sets forth what is required when the Commission is prepared to enter the 45-day comment period before voting to adopt a plan, also specifies what materials the Commission must make public. That provision likewise includes no requirement that the Commission make privileged materials publicly available: (14) The commission shall follow the following procedure in adopting a plan: