## Facts

- Florida adopted a 1992 legislative reapportionment plan for single-member State Senate and House districts (SJR 2-G), including districts in Dade County.
- Hispanic and Black voters, and the United States in a consolidated action, challenged the plan under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging dilution of minority voting strength.
- The Florida Supreme Court previously approved the plan under an accelerated state-constitutional review, noted limits on full § 2 review, and indicated additional § 2 litigation could proceed.
- A federal three-judge district court consolidated the § 2 challenges and found racially polarized voting and historical discrimination with continuing effects.
- The district court found minority voters could form more majority-minority districts than the plan created (including additional Hispanic House and Senate opportunities and an additional majority-Black Senate district).
- The district court held the plan violated § 2 and imposed a remedial House plan increasing the number of majority-Hispanic House districts; it left the Senate districts unchanged due to competing proposed remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the earlier state-court approval of the redistricting plan precluded subsequent federal § 2 litigation.
2. Whether satisfaction of the *Gingles* preconditions, combined with evidence of racial bloc voting and discrimination, established vote dilution under § 2 for Florida’s House districts.
3. Whether “rough proportionality” between minority population share and the number of effective minority opportunity districts is relevant to the § 2 “totality of circumstances” inquiry.
4. Whether § 2 requires creation of the maximum feasible number of majority-minority districts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the refusal to give preclusive effect to the state-court proceeding, concluding the accelerated review did not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the § 2 issues.
- The Court reversed the district court’s merits finding of a § 2 violation as to the Florida House plan and reversed the remedial House plan.
- The Court held that, under the totality of circumstances, the plaintiffs did not prove minority voters had less opportunity to participate and elect candidates of choice where effective minority opportunity districts were roughly proportional to minority voting-age population.

## Legal Principles

- The *Gingles* preconditions are necessary in single-member district vote-dilution cases but are not sufficient; courts must still evaluate the “totality of circumstances” under § 2.
- Proportionality between minority voting-age population share and the number of effective minority opportunity districts is a relevant factor in the totality analysis and can weigh strongly against a finding of dilution, but it is not dispositive and does not bar all § 2 claims.
- Section 2 forbids dilution of minority voting strength but does not impose a rule requiring maximization of majority-minority districts.
- Issue preclusion does not apply when the prior proceeding did not actually and fully litigate the relevant federal issue and did not provide a full and fair opportunity to do so.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 2 vote-dilution claims require a totality-of-circumstances assessment beyond the *Gingles* preconditions and that rough proportionality in effective minority opportunity districts, while not a safe harbor, supported rejecting the district court’s finding that Florida’s House plan denied Hispanic and Black voters equal electoral opportunity; § 2 also does not require maximization of majority-minority districts.


Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994)