## Facts

- After the 2000 census, Georgia enacted a new State Senate redistricting plan and, as a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, sought federal preclearance.
- The benchmark (1997) plan had 56 districts, including 11 districts with total Black population over 50% and 10 districts with Black voting-age population (BVAP) over 50%.
- Population changes increased the number of districts with at least 50% Black population to 13, with BVAP over 50% in 12 districts.
- It was uncontested that most Black voters in Georgia voted Democratic and that all elected Black members of the General Assembly were Democrats.
- Georgia’s 2001 plan reduced BVAP in some heavily concentrated majority-minority districts to create more districts where Black voters could exert substantial electoral influence without being a majority.
- The new plan included 13 districts with majority BVAP, 13 districts with BVAP between 30% and 50%, and 4 districts with BVAP between 25% and 30%.
- Black legislators overwhelmingly supported the plan: 10 of 11 Black state senators and 33 of 34 Black state representatives voted for it; no Republicans voted for it, making Black legislators’ votes necessary for passage.
- A three-judge federal district court denied preclearance, finding the plan would cause impermissible retrogression in Black voters’ effective exercise of the franchise.

## Issues

1. Under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, must retrogression be assessed primarily by the number/strength of safe majority-minority districts, or may a state offset reductions in such districts by creating influence or coalition districts?
2. Did the district court apply an unduly narrow retrogression analysis by focusing largely on the ability to elect preferred candidates in majority-minority districts and discounting other indicia of minority electoral power?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held the district court failed to consider all relevant factors bearing on retrogression and overemphasized safe majority-minority districts.
- The Court instructed that § 5 analysis must evaluate minority voters’ overall effective electoral position, including potential gains in influence or coalition districts.
- The Court indicated that support from minority legislators is a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing retrogression.

## Legal Principles

- Section 5 preclearance is denied if a voting change would cause retrogression in racial minorities’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise compared to the benchmark plan.
- Retrogression analysis is not limited to counting districts where minority voters can reliably elect candidates of choice; it requires consideration of the totality of relevant circumstances.
- Influence and coalition districts may be considered in determining whether minorities have less overall opportunity to elect preferred candidates under the new plan.
- Section 5 does not require maintaining any fixed numerical minority percentage within particular districts; the inquiry centers on overall opportunity relative to the benchmark.
- Legislative support from minority representatives may inform whether a plan diminishes minority voters’ electoral position, but it does not control the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Court required a broader § 5 nonretrogression inquiry that considers influence and coalition districts and other contextual factors, vacating the denial of preclearance and remanding for reconsideration under that multi-factor approach.


Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003)