The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, representing, among others, the Georgia NAACP, asked a federal district court on Wednesday to block—or enjoin—an unconstitutional 2015 state house districting plan until the legal challenge to those district maps has been resolved.
Instead of these problem maps, the committee argues, the court should require the state to use the last unchallenged maps for the 2018 election. If the court grants the request for an injunction, it means the judge has suggested the committee is likely to win the case altogether.
To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must show:(1) a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury absent an injunction outweighs the injury an injunction may impose on Defendant; and (4) that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, part of the Eleventh Circuit, concerns two Atlanta metro area Georgia House of Representatives districts redrawn by Republicans in 2015 to help white incumbents get reelected.
The redistricting did not comply with constitutional requirements like the longstanding “one person, one vote” principle or statutory requirements such as the Voting Rights Act to protect the rights of minority voters. Nor did the General Assembly pass the new map to further traditional redistricting principles such as compactness or avoiding splitting counties, municipalities, and precincts. Rather, the sole reason for re-redistricting House Districts 105 and 111 was to protect the political interests of white Republican incumbents.
There are times when race can be considered a factor in districting, but predicating redistricting entirely on race? It hasn’t even been a year since the Supreme Court last affirmed that it’s unconstitutional.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits racial gerrymanders in legislative districting plans. It prevents a State, in the absence of “sufficient justification,” from “separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race.”
Nevertheless, as the committee's filing spells out, Republicans persisted.
The evidence shows that the Reapportionment Office, the office tasked with drawing the district maps as the General Assembly directed, used racial data in redrawing Districts 105 and 111. Notably, inconsistent with traditional redistricting principles, the Reapportionment Office split multiple precincts in Districts 105 and 111. It did not have partisan performance data below the precinct level, but it had racial data down to the census block level. Gina Wright, the primary map-drawer, relied on that racial data as she used mapping software to draw maps for Districts 105 and 111. Each time she created a new iteration, the racial demographics in the newly drawn map automatically updated in a “pending changes” box on her screen. She did not have similarly accurate data showing election results.
The effects of this unconstitutional undertaking were exactly as intended.
The new maps created by H.B. 5666 moved significant numbers of black voters out of Districts 105 and 111 into adjoining, whiter districts, and replaced them with white voters. The population moved into District 105 was 60% white and 25.9% black, and the population moved out of District 105 was 29.1% white and 40.3% black. For District 111, the population moved into the district was 51.8% white and 34.7% black, while the population moved out of the district was 44.5% white and 42.8% black. Id. at 33. The Reapportionment Office also calculated the demographic changes at the precinct level.
If that evidence isn’t compelling enough for you, there’s the official admission of unlawful racially discriminatory redistricting.
Wright acknowledged that the plan was not designed to further any traditional districting principles, but rather was to make Districts 105 and 111 safer for their white Republican incumbents. Not only did the reredistricting not further any traditional districting principles, it actively undermined them. For example, both 105 and 111 are less compact under the 2015 reredistricting than under the 2012 plan, District 105 maintained three split precincts and District 111 increased from two split precincts to five, neither district respects city boundaries, and the plan does not respect county boundaries
Now, the committee’s doing its best to make sure these maps don’t taint the 2018 election—or any other.
The committee’s president and executive director issued a statement via press release on Wednesday.
“Georgia’s mid-decade redistricting is an egregious example of the kind of racial gerrymandering that has no place in our democracy today,” said Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “In swing districts where margins of victory were close, Georgia lawmakers reopened legislative maps for the sole purpose of locking in favored non-minority incumbents. Georgia is a place that provides a textbook example of the kind of the unlawful racial gerrymandering that infects too many states today. Our action seeks to fight back against the unlawful actions of Georgia legislators who have put their thumb on the scale of democracy at the expense of minority voters.”
She was joined by Georgia NAACP president Phyllis Blake, also involved in the case.
“The Georgia NAACP will not abide by the 2018 election being conducted under racially gerrymandered district boundary lines,” said Phyllis Blake, Georgia NAACP President. “The right to vote rings hollow if elections are held in districts tailor-made to ensure that incumbents are reelected.”
In addition to the Georgia NAACP, plaintiffs include several individuals who live in the contested districts. Attorneys from Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Bryan Cave law firms are assisting in a pro bono capacity.
Here’s to hoping for another court victory on the gerrymandering front.