Richard Rose, et al. v. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State

For nearly 40 years, this Court has analyzed claims of vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 using the framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). This Court reaffirmed that familiar framework in Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023). In an earlier appeal in this case, the Eleventh Circuit announced a novel rule under the first Gingles precondition: that a Section 2 plaintiff challenging a State’s at-large method of electing a multimember commission must propose an at-large remedy that does not alter the State’s preferred method of election. The petitioners promptly moved to amend their complaint to plead at-large remedies consistent with that new rule. The district court denied leave to amend, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a district court may deny a Section 2 plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to meet a new legal standard announced for the first time in a prior appeal, when Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982), Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018), and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015) (ALBC), require that plaintiffs be given an opportunity to satisfy such a newly announced standard.

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s novel rule requiring Section 2 vote-dilution plaintiffs to propose a remedy that does not alter the State’s chosen electoral model is contrary to Section 2, Gingles, and Milligan. (i)