In a recent development, the plaintiffs who successfully sued to overturn Georgia’s congressional and state legislative districts have criticized the proposed maps put forth by Republican state lawmakers. These lawmakers claim that their plans address the issue of illegal dilution of Black votes while still preserving GOP power. However, the plaintiffs argue that these plans are a “mockery” of federal law and a “total failure of compliance.”
The three sets of plaintiffs in the case filed briefs with U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, who ruled in their favor in October, urging him to reject Georgia’s proposed maps and draw new voting districts himself in time for the 2024 legislative and congressional elections. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for December 20, where Judge Jones will decide whether to accept the plans. The state is expected to file its defense of the plans next week.
During a special legislative session that ended last week, Republican leaders repeatedly stated that their goal was to comply with Judge Jones’ directive. The judge had instructed lawmakers to draw an additional Black-majority congressional district, two additional Black-majority state Senate districts, and five additional Black-majority state House districts.
However, the plaintiffs, echoing arguments made by Democrats during the session, contend that the Republican maps do not adequately address the problems identified by Judge Jones under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This section prohibits the dilution of Black votes. Lawyers for one of the plaintiff groups stated, “The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court’s order… Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance.”
The plaintiffs further argue that the proposed plans unlawfully dismantle other districts that allow Black and other minority voters to elect their preferred candidates. Of particular concern is the elimination of a current district in suburban Atlanta represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath, while simultaneously creating a new Black-majority district in Fulton, Douglas, Cobb, and Fayette counties. The plaintiffs argue that this move undermines the purpose of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which seeks to prevent such manipulation of voting opportunities.
Another point of contention is the relocation of Black voters from areas outside the districts ruled illegal by Judge Jones. The plaintiffs argue that this shift fails to provide enough opportunities for Black voters in those areas to elect new representatives. While these changes may increase the number of majority-Black districts statewide, they do not address the concerns raised by Judge Jones, particularly in the southern and western areas of metropolitan Atlanta.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs challenging the congressional district argue that McBath’s current district in Gwinnett and Fulton counties is protected under the Voting Rights Act as a minority opportunity district, even if it does not have a Black majority. They assert that a coalition of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters in the 7th District vote cohesively as a group, while white voters consistently oppose nonwhite-preferred candidates.
The state has indicated its intention to argue that only districts consisting of one nonwhite group, such as Black voters, are legally protected. They assert that claims of protection for a coalition district have weak legal foundations. However, the plaintiffs counter this argument by stating that minority districts are protected by law in Georgia as long as different minority communities support the same candidates cohesively.
All the plaintiffs have presented alternative plans drawn by their own experts, which they argue would be less disruptive and produce fairer results for Black voters. If Judge Jones rejects the state’s proposed plans, he may consider accepting these alternative proposals or appoint a special master to draw new plans.
Critics of Georgia’s redistricting process argue that the state’s plans undermine the court’s ruling, the Voting Rights Act, and equal opportunities for minority voters to participate in electoral politics. As this issue unfolds, it remains to be seen how Judge Jones will rule on the matter and what implications it may have for Georgia’s political landscape.
