Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger

Abigail Shaw, Pro Hac Vice, Alex W. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, Cassandra Mitchell, Pro Hac Vice, Debo P. Adegbile, Pro Hac Vice, Eliot Kim, Pro Hac Vice, Maura Douglas, Pro Hac Vice, Robert Boone, Pro Hac Vice, Samuel Weitzman, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Ari J. Savitzky, Pro Hac Vice, Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, Pro Hac Vice, Sophia Lin Lakin, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Anuradha Sivaram, Pro Hac Vice, Ayana Williams, Pro Hac Vice, De'Ericka Aiken, Pro Hac Vice, Edward Henderson Williams, II, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Denise Tsai, Pro Hac Vice, George P. Varghese, Pro Hac Vice, Taeyoung Kim, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Rahul Garabadu, Sean Young, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ.

Abigail Shaw, Pro Hac Vice, Alex W. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, Debo P. Adegbile, Pro Hac Vice, Eliot Kim, Pro Hac Vice, Maura Douglas, Pro Hac Vice, Robert Boone, Pro Hac Vice, Samuel Weitzman, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Ari J. Savitzky, Pro Hac Vice, Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, Pro Hac Vice, Sophia Lin Lakin, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Anuradha Sivaram, Pro Hac Vice, Ayana Williams, Pro Hac Vice, De'Ericka Aiken, Pro Hac Vice, Edward Henderson Williams, II, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Denise Tsai, Pro Hac Vice, George P. Varghese, Pro Hac Vice, Taeyoung Kim, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Rahul Garabadu, Sean Young, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ, Eric T. Woods in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ, Katie Bailey Glenn in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ, Phil Brown in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ, Janice Stewart in 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ.

Abha Khanna, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan Patrick Hawley, Pro Hac Vice, Elias Law Group LLP, Kevin J. Hamilton, Pro Hac Vice, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Adam Martin Sparks, Joyce Gist Lewis, Krevolin & Horst, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Christina Ashley Ford, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel C. Osher, Pro Hac Vice, Graham W. White, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Brandon Jones, Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs in 1:21-CV-5339, 1:22-CV-122-SCJ.

Bryan Francis Jacoutot, Bryan P. Tyson, Frank B. Strickland, Loree Anne Paradise, Taylor English Duma LLP, Charlene S. McGowan, Office of the Georgia Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Brad Raffensperger in 1:21-CV-5339-SCJ, 1:21-CV-5337-SCJ, 1:22-CV-122-SCJ, Sara Tindall Ghazal in 1:22-CV-122-SCJ, 1:21-CV-5339-SCJ, Matthew Mashburn in 1:22-CV-122-SCJ, 1:21-CV-5339-SCJ, Anh Le in 1:21-CV-5339-SCJ, 1:22-CV-122-SCJ, Edward Lindsey in 1:22-CV-122-SCJ.

Bryan P. Tyson, Taylor English Duma LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Edward Lindsey in 1:21-CV-5339-SCJ.

ORDER FOLLOWING COORDINATED HEARING ON MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STEVE C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND...1234

A. What Is Redistricting and Why Is It Necessary?...1234

B. Factual History...1235

C. The Purpose of the Voting Rights Act and the Conduct It Prohibits...1236

D. Timeline...1237

II. LEGAL STANDARD...1238

A. Preliminary Injunction...1238

1. Eleventh Circuit...1238

2. Recent Supreme Court Authority...1238

B. The Voting Rights Act...1240

1. The Gingles Preconditions...1240

2. The Senate Factors...1241

C. Evidentiary Considerations...1242

D. Motions to Dismiss...1243

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...1243

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits...1243

1. The First Gingles Precondition: Numerosity and Compactness...1243

a) Credibility Determinations...1243

(1) Mr. Cooper...1243

(2) Mr. Esselstyn...1245

(3) Mr. Morgan...1246

(4) Ms. Wright...1248

b) First Gingles Precondition Legal Standard...1250

(1) Numerosity...1250

(2) Compactness...1251

c) Pendergrass...1251

(1) Numerosity...1252

(a) Demographic developments in Georgia...1253

(b) Georgia's 2021 congressional plan...1254

(c) The Pendergrass Plaintiffs’ illustrative congressional plan...1256

(2) Geographic Compactness...1257

(a) Population equality...1258

(b) Compactness...1258

(c) Contiguity...1260

(d) Preservation of political subdivisions...1260

(e) Preservation of communities of interest...1261

(f) Core Retention...1263

(g) Racial considerations...1264

(3) Conclusions of Law...1266

d) Grant and Alpha Phi Alpha...1266

(1) The Grant Plaintiffs are substantially likely to establish a Section 2 violation...1271

(a) Senate Districts...1271

i) Numerosity...1271

ii) Geographic compactness...1274

(a) Population equality...1274

(b) Compactness...1275

(c) Contiguity...1277

(d) Preservation of political subdivisions...1278

(e) Preservation of communities of interest...1279

(f) Incumbent protection...1281

(g) Core retention...1281

(h) Racial considerations...1282

(b) Esselstyn House Districts...1283

i) Numerosity...1283

ii) Geographic Compactness...1285

(a) Population equality...1286

(b) Compactness...1286

(c) Contiguity...1288

(d) Preservation of political subdivisions...1288

(e) Preservation of communities of interest...1289

(f) Incumbent protection...1290

(g) Core retention...1292

(h) Racial considerations...1292

(2) The Alpha Phi Alpha Plaintiffs are substantially likely to establish a Section 2 violation...1293

(a) Cooper's Illustrative House District 153...1293

i) Numerosity...1294

ii) Geographic compactness...1295

(a) Population equality...1295

(b) Compactness...1295

(c) Contiguity...1296

(d) Preservation of political subdivisions...1296

(e) Preservation of communities of interest...1299

(f) Incumbent protection...1299

(g) Core retention...1300

(h) Racial considerations...1301

(3) Conclusions of Law...1302

2. The Second Gingles Precondition: Political Cohesion...1302

a) The parties’ arguments...1302

(1) Defendants...1302

(2) Plaintiffs...1302

(3) Conclusions of law...1302

b) The existence of political cohesion...1304

(1) Pendergrass...1304

(a) Plaintiffs’ Expert: Dr. Maxwell Palmer...1304

i) Qualification...1304

ii) Analysis...1304

(b) Defendants’ Expert: Dr. John Alford...1305

i) Qualification...1305

ii) Analysis...1306

(c) Conclusions of Law...1307

(2) Grant...1307

(a) Dr. Palmer's analysis...1307

(3) Alpha Phi Alpha...1308

(a) Plaintiffs’ Expert: Dr. Lisa Handley...1308

i) Qualification...1308

ii) Analysis...1309

(a) Statewide general elections...1309

(b) State legislative elections...1310

(c) Primaries...1310

(b) Defendants’ Expert: Dr. Alford...1311

(c) Conclusions of Law...1311

3. The Third Gingles Precondition: Bloc Voting...1311

a) Pendergrass...1312

b) Grant...1312

c) Alpha Phi Alpha...1313

4. The Senate Factors...1314

a) Senate Factor One: Georgia has a history of official, voting-related discrimination....1314

b) Senate Factor Two: Georgia voters are racially polarized....1316

c) Senate Factor Three: Georgia's voting practices enhance the opportunity for discrimination....1316

d) Senate Factor Four: Georgia has no history of candidate slating for legislative elections....1317

e) Senate Factor Five: Georgia's discrimination has produced significant socioeconomic disparities that impair Black Georgians’ participation in the political process....1317

f) Senate Factor Six: Both overt and subtle racial appeals are prevalent in Georgia's political campaigns....1318

g) Senate Factor Seven: Black candidates in Georgia are underrepresented

in office and rarely succeed outside of majority-minority districts....1319

h) Senate Factor Eight: Georgia is not responsive to its Black residents....1319

i) Senate Factor Nine: The justifications for the enacted redistricting maps are tenuous....1320

5. Conclusions of Law...1320

B. Irreparable Injury...1320

C. Balancing of the Equities and Public Interest...1321

1. Findings of Fact...1321

2. Conclusions of Law...1324

IV. CONCLUSION...1327

ORDER ¹

This matter appears before the Court on the pending Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed in the above-stated cases concerning the legality of the State of Georgia's newly adopted redistricting plans. APA Doc. No. [39], Grant Doc. No. [19], Pendergrass Doc. No. [32]. In considering this important matter, the Court has had the benefit of thousands of pages of briefing and evidence, as well as the testimony of numerous fact and expert witnesses the Court observed over a six-day hearing on this matter. After careful review and consideration, the Court finds that while the plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to ultimately prove that certain aspects of the State's redistricting plans are unlawful, preliminary injunctive relief is not in the public's interest because changes to the redistricting maps at this point in the 2022 election schedule are

likely to substantially disrupt the election process. As a result, the Court will not grant the requests for preliminary injunctive relief.

The Court's analysis proceeds as follows. First, the Court discusses redistricting, voting rights law, and the factual and procedural backgrounds of the above-stated actions. Second, the Court provides the relevant legal standard and discusses the voting rights legislation and case law...