Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 7 FILED

2023 Sep-28 PM 04:33

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE REDISTRICTING 2023

SPECIAL MASTER Misc. No. 2:23-mc-1181-AMM

BOBBY SINGLETON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01291-AMM
v.
THREE-JUDGE COURT
WES ALLEN, in his official capacity as
Alabama Secretary of State, et al.,
Defendants.

EVAN MILLIGAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01530-AMM
v.
THREE-JUDGE COURT
WES ALLEN, in his official capacity as
Alabama Secretary of State, et al.,
Defendants.

MARCUS CASTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 2:21-cv-1536-AMM
v.

WES ALLEN, in his official capacity as

Alabama Secretary of State, et al.,
Defendants.

SECRETARY ALLEN’S OBJECTIONS TO THE

SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLANS
 Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 7

Defendant Secretary of State Wes Allen respectfully objects to the proposed

remedial maps submitted by the Special Master. See Singleton, doc. 201.

The three maps proposed by the Special Master share the same general struc-

ture with each other, with the Plaintiffs’ “VRA Plan,” and with every demonstrative

plan submitted by the Milligan and Caster Plaintiffs. They divide up Mobile City,

Mobile County, and the Gulf Coast counties so that black voters in Mobile County

can be linked to black voters in Montgomery and eastern Alabama for a new District

2.

Secretary Allen preserves his objection to these plans and maintains his argu-

ment that the districts based on this structure are unconstitutional racial gerryman-

ders that harm Alabama voters by subjecting them to racial classifications. In carry-

ing out the Court’s orders, the Special Master’s proposed plans carry forward what

Secretary Allen maintains are errors the Court has made in its preliminary findings.

Even if any alterations made to a plan by the Special Master’s demographer were

performed “race blind,” the starting point was a plan where race predominates over

traditional criteria, and the changes made were too modest to undo the race-based

decisions. Secretary Allen preserves his argument that this Court’s preliminary in-

junction order was in error where it found that race did not predominate over tradi-

tional districting criteria in plans based on this structure or any other approach that

sacrifices traditional criteria for racial goals. The Secretary likewise preserves his

2
 Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 3 of 7

argument that replacing the 2023 Plan with these plans or others that sacrifice com-

pactness, county integrity, communities of interest, or other traditional criteria is not

required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which “never requires adoption of

districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S.

1, 30 (2023).

Of the three plans, Secretary Allen contends that the Special Master’s “Reme-

dial Plan 1” is most objectionable because of its unnecessary split of Houston

County. Dr. Duchin attempted to justify the split as being driven by a desire to “keep

all named Milligan plaintiffs . . . in the Black Belt districts.” In re Redistricting 2023,

Case No. 2:23-cv-01181, doc. 7-3 at 1 (N.D. Ala.). As the Special Master explained,

“the law does not require that result, and pursuing that result should not undermine

traditional redistricting principles.” Singleton, doc. 201 at 22. Quite the contrary. A

Section 2 plaintiff does not have “the right to be placed in a majority-minority district

once a violation of the statute is shown.” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 917 n.9 (1996).

A federal court cannot “override the legislature’s remedial map” in a way that

goes beyond what is necessary to meet the demands of federal law, North Carolina

v. Covington, 138 S. Ct. 2548, 2554 (2018), which is precisely what would happen

if this superfluous split of Houston County is included in a court-drawn plan. The

Houston County split makes more changes than needed to cure the likely Section 2

3
 Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 4 of 7

violation found by this Court and creates needless election administration problems

when Boards of Registrars reassign voters to new districts.

Moreover, while the Special Master “infer[red]” that Dr. Duchin split Houston

County to ensure all of the Milligan Plaintiffs were in Districts 2 or 7, the split ap-

pears to be race-based. Given the address that Secretary Allen has for Milligan Plain-

tiff Letetia Jackson, including her in District 2 would require picking up her precinct

and one other to keep District 2 contiguous. But Duchin picks up numerous high-

BVAP areas of Houston County, while other parts of Houston County with fewer

black voters are left behind.1 Moving around these additional voters was not needed

to move Plaintiff Jackson to District 2—and, again, one voter’s desire to vote in

District 2 is no reason to split an additional county and move tens of thousands of

voters.

No traditional criterion justifies the incursion into Houston County. An argu-

ment that it is needed to guarantee a win by the candidate of choice of black voters

is inconsistent with the language of Section 2, which merely requires an equally open

process. And an argument that the incursion is warranted by some newly found con-

nection between Dothan and the Black Belt is another post-hoc justification for

1
Total population and demographic data for the 2020 Census down to the census-tract level can
be viewed here. See 2020 Census Demographic Data Map Viewer, U.S. Census Bureau,
https://tinyurl.com/5d3njeks. Maps submitted to the Special Master likewise show that portions of
Houston County added to District 2 have high percentages of black population. See In re Redis-
tricting 2023, doc. 15 at 4.

4
 Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 5 of 7

connecting black voters together, wherever they may be found, regardless of what

traditional criteria must be jettisoned to draw the district.

While all three plans fracture the Wiregrass more than the 2023 Plan does,

Remedial Plan 2 (like Remedial Plan 1) fractures that community of interest more

than necessary to remedy the likely § 2 violation. As the Special Master noted, Re-

medial Plan 2 places “Henry County, considered to be part of the Wiregrass, in Dis-

trict 2 with the Black Belt,” while Remedial Plan 3 shows it is possible to “place

Henry County with the majority of Wiregrass counties in District 1.” Singleton, doc.

201 at 24.

Finally, Secretary Allen notes that the particularly convoluted intrusion of

District 2 into Mobile County in Remedial Plan 3 will likely make it more difficult

for election officials in Mobile County to reassign voters accurately by the applicable

deadlines. The relative length of the dividing line between Districts 1 and 2 will

likely translate into additional difficulties in sorting voters into their new districts.

Secretary Allen thus objects to each of the three plans proposed by the Special

Master, but notes that “Remedial Plan 1” is the most objectionable because of its

unnecessary split of Houston County.

5
Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 6 of 7

Respectfully Submitted,

Steve Marshall
Attorney General
/s/ Edmund G. LaCour Jr.
Edmund G. LaCour Jr. (ASB-9182-U81L)
Solicitor General
James W. Davis (ASB-4063-I58J)
Deputy Attorney General
Misty S. Fairbanks Messick (ASB-1813-T71F)
Brenton M. Smith (ASB-1656-X27Q)
Benjamin M. Seiss (ASB-2110-O00W)
Charles A. McKay (ASB-7256-K18K)
Assistant Attorneys General

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF ALABAMA
501 Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 300152
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
Telephone: (334) 242-7300
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Counsel for Secretary Allen

6
 Case 2:21-cv-01530-AMM Document 301 Filed 09/28/23 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2023, I filed the foregoing using

the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will serve all counsel of record.

/s/ Edmund G. LaCour Jr.

Counsel for Secretary Allen