On Thursday, Feb. 3, the Michigan State Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission‘s maps against a minority vote dilution challenge under Section 2 Voting Rights Act (VRA). Read the Court’s opinion/order here.
According to the opinion, that decision mostly hinged on the plaintiff’s failure to show that any of the Gingle’s preconditions were met to establish a Sec. 2 violation. In other words, the was no specific evidence offered by the plaintiffs that Black voters would not be able to elect the candidate of their choice. The crux of the plaintiff’s argument, the court explained, was that the mere absence of an equivalent number of race-based, majority-minority districts in the adopted plans as compared to Michigan’s existing congressional and state legislative districts, violates the VRA. Indeed, the original complaint claims that “should the plans for the US Congressional districts be adopted, it would completely eliminate the two majority-minority (Black) districts that currently run through the largest concentrated Black population in Michigan (Detroit).”
However, for the court, the mere fact that the commission’s map did not maintain the majority-minority districts in the previous map(s) was not enough to prove vote dilution under the VRA. In particular, the court indicated “there was no showing of ‘racial bloc voting,’ one of the requirements under the Gingles test; In fact, the court explained that racial bloc-voting analysis (a breakdown in voting patterns based on race) performed by the commission’s experts suggested significant white crossover voting for Black-preferred candidates that had the effect of affording Black voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice even in the absence of 50%+ majority-minority districts.”
“This evidence of white crossover voting—unrebutted by plaintiffs’ expert—reinforces our conclusion that plaintiffs have not made the threshold showing of white bloc voting required by Gingles. Thus, Plaintiffs have not identified grounds or legal authority that would allow us to question the Commission’s decision not to draw race-based, majority-minority districts.”
Read the Opinion
Find us on:
