Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al., Appellants v. Evan Milligan, et al.

For fifty years, the Alabama Legislature kept the State’s two coastal counties in one district, allowing one voice to represent the Gulf Coast in Congress. The 2021 Plan, which made minimal changes to its predecessor, was preliminarily enjoined under §2 of the Voting Rights Act for prioritizing the Gulf Coast over another community of interest, the Black Belt (named for its rich soil). Rather than litigate the lawfulness of the 2021 Plan, the State adopted the 2023 Plan, which kept both the Gulf Coast and Black Belt intact to the fullest extent possible. It also furthered the Legislature’s goal of protecting incumbents. Still, the district court enjoined use of the 2023 Plan, deemed the State’s political goals “illegitimate,” and found that the State had intentionally discriminated by failing to draw another majority-minority district. The questions presented are:

1. Did the district court err by not requiring Plaintiffs to offer an alternative map that performed just as well as the State’s map with respect to the State’s districting criteria?

2. Did the district court err by finding racial-bloc voting without accounting for politics?

3. Did the district court err by finding that the totality of circumstances suggests an objective likelihood of discrimination?

4. Did the State violate the Fourteenth Amendment by declining to draw a race-based plan?