Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

IRAC Summary:

The central issue in Merrill v. Milligan was whether Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan, which included only one majority-minority district out of seven, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black voters.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in the Act. A violation of Section 2 is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes are not equally open to members of a racial or language minority group, in that they have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

The application in Merrill v. Milligan involved a detailed analysis of the redistricting plan in light of the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles and subsequent cases. This included assessing the geographical compactness of minority populations, the political cohesiveness of minority voters, the history of voting-related discrimination in the state, and whether the minority group had an equal opportunity to elect the candidates of its choice.

The conclusion of the case would depend on how the court applied the Section 2 factors to the facts of the case. If the court found that the redistricting plan did in fact dilute the voting power of Black voters in violation of Section 2, it could order the implementation of a new plan that included an additional majority-minority district to remedy the violation.

Detailed IRAC Outline:

I. Issue
A. What is the specific legal question or controversy regarding the congressional redistricting plan?
B. Does the redistricting plan violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by resulting in the dilution of the voting strength of Black voters in Alabama?

II. Rule
A. Explanation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
B. Criteria established by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles for assessing a Section 2 claim.
C. The totality of circumstances test to determine whether a discriminatory effect exists.

III. Application
A. Geographical Compactness
1. Examination of whether the minority population is sufficiently compact to form a majority in a single-member district.
2. Analysis of the districts as drawn under the redistricting plan.

B. Political Cohesiveness
1. Determination of whether the minority group is politically cohesive.
2. Presentation of evidence such as voting patterns, candidate preferences, and election results.

C. Majority Voting Bloc
1. Analysis of whether the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.
2. Consideration of historical election data and expert testimony.

D. The Totality of Circumstances
1. History of voting-related discrimination in Alabama.
2. The extent to which Alabama’s redistricting plan may enhance or dilute the ability of Black voters to elect their preferred candidates.
3. Consideration of other relevant factors, such as candidate slating processes, the use of racial appeals in political campaigns, and the responsiveness of elected officials to the needs of minority communities.

IV. Conclusion
A. Synthesis of the evidence and application of the law to the facts.
B. A determination of whether the plaintiffs have met the burden of proof under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
C. The appropriate relief if the court finds a violation, such as the creation of an additional majority-minority district.

V. Specific Case Facts and Discussion (if available)
A. Demographics of the affected districts.
B. Specific evidence presented by the plaintiffs demonstrating the dilution of voting power.
C. Arguments presented by the state of Alabama in defense of the redistricting plan.
D. Any statistical analyses or expert reports submitted as evidence.
E. The lower court’s findings and any appellate issues raised.

Note: Since Merrill v. Milligan is a hypothetical case created for this example, specific case facts, court rulings, and the actual conclusion are not provided. When drafting a real case study guide, it would be necessary to fill in this section with the actual facts and legal findings pertinent to the case.

Discover more from Legal Three

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading