Ga. State Conference of the NAACP v. State

• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:21-cv-05338-ELB-SCJ-SDG,1:22-cv-00090-ELB-SCJ-SDG
• Decision Date: 26 October 2023
• Parties: GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants. COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

1

GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.

COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, Defendant.

Civil Action Nos. 1:21-cv-05338-ELB-SCJ-SDG, 1:22-cv-00090-ELB-SCJ-SDG

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

October 26, 2023

Before BRANCH, Circuit Judge, JONES and GRIMBERG, District Judges.

THREE-JUDGE COURT

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM except as to Section III.B.:

After careful consideration of the parties' briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are DENIED for the reasons stated below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Factual Background 5

A. The Parties and Claims .......................................................................................... 5

1. The Georgia NAACP Case .................................................................................... 5

2. The Common Cause Case ..................................................................................... 6

B. Georgia's Redistricting Process .................................................................................... 7

C. The Enacted Maps ...................................................................................................... 10

II. Legal Standard ............................................................................................................. 11

III. Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12

A. Standing ......................................................................................................................... 13

1. Associational Standing .................................................................................................... 14

i. The NAACP, Common Cause, and the League .................................................................15

ii. GALEO and GCPA .......................................................................................................... 17

B. Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity .................................................................................... 18

C. Racial Gerrymandering Claims .......................................................................................... 23

1. The Parties' Arguments ...................................................................................................... 25

2. Congressional Districts ......................................................................................................... 27

i. CD-02 and CD-08 .............................................................................................................. 28

ii. CD-03 ............................................................................................................................... 29

iii. CD-04 and CD-10 ............................................................................................................ 30

iv. CD-06, CD-13, and CD-14 ............................................................................................... 31

3. State Senate Districts .......................................................................................................... 34

i. SD-01, SD-02, and SD-04 .................................................................................................... 35

ii. SD-17 .................................................................................................................................... 36

iii. SD-26 .................................................................................................................................... 36

iv. SD-48 ...................................................................................................................................... 37

v. SD-56 ...................................................................................................................................... 38

4. State House Districts 44, 48, 49, 52, and 104 ........................................................................... 39

D. Discriminatory Purpose Claim ...................................................................................................... 40

E. Vote Dilution Claim .................................................................................................................. 42

1. The Gingles Prerequisites ........................................................................................................... 44

i. First Gingles Prerequisite .......................................................................................................... 44

a. Coalitions ................................................................................................................................... 45

b. Traditional Districting Principles ................................................................................................... 49

ii. Second and Third Gingles Prerequisites ..................................................................................... 51

2. Proportionality ............................................................................................................................... 56

IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 57

BRANCH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: ........................................................ 58 Plaintiffs in these two related cases allege that redistricting legislation enacted in the wake of the 2020 Census infringes on the rights of many of Georgia's black and latino voters. In Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgia (the Georgia NAACP case), Plaintiffs assert statutory and constitutional claims related to certain districts drawn for the Georgia Senate and House, and the U.S. House of Representatives. In Common Cause v. Raffensperger (the Common Cause case), Plaintiffs bring a constitutional challenge to three of Georgia's congressional districts. Because both sets of Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims, a three-judge panel was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Doc. No. [8].^[1] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, we consolidated the cases for all purposes, electing to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the Georgia NAACP Plaintiffs' statutory claim. Doc. No. [40].

On March 27, 2023, Defendants in both cases moved for summary judgment. Doc. No. [141]. Common Cause Doc. No. [92]. As explained below, Defendants' motions are denied. These cases will proceed to trial.

I. Factual Background

A. The Parties and Claims

1. The Georgia NAACP Case

Plaintiffs are the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (NAACP); the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc. (GCPA); and GALEO Latino Community Development Fund, Inc. (GALEO). Doc. No. [59], ¶¶ 33-59. Defendants are the State of Georgia; Brian Kemp, in his official capacity as the Governor of Georgia; and Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as the Georgia Secretary of State. Id. ¶¶ 60-62. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (Count I); vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the VRA) (Count II); and discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 (Count III). Id. ¶¶ 313-44. These claims challenge the redistricting plans for the Georgia Senate,^[2] the Georgia House,^[3] and Congress (collectively, the 2021 Maps).^[4] Plaintiffs have now refined their claims to challenge Senate Districts 1, 2, 4, 17, 26, 48, and 56;^[5] House Districts 44, 48, 49, 52, and 104; and Congressional Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14. Doc. No. [152], at 17.

2. The Common Cause Case

Plaintiffs are Common Cause; the League of Women Voters of Georgia (the League); and Dr. Cheryl Graves, Dr. Ursula Thomas, Jasmine Bowles, Dr. H. Benjamin Williams, and Brianne Perkins. Common Cause Doc. No. [32], ¶¶ 12-26. Defendant is Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as Secretary of State. Id. ¶ 27.^[6] These Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action for racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 119-23. They challenge Georgia Congressional Districts (CD) 6, 13, and 14 adopted as part of the 2021 Maps (together with the districts challenged by the Georgia NAACP Plaintiffs, the Challenged Districts), contending that the Georgia General Assembly subordinated traditional districting principles to racial considerations. Id. ¶ 1. In this regard, the sole cause of action in Common Cause is entirely encompassed by the racial gerrymandering claim in the Georgia NAACP case.

B. Georgia's Redistricting Process

The 2021 redistricting process is the first Census-related redistricting in Georgia since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), after which Georgia was no longer subject to the VRA's preclearance requirement. See, e.g., Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, 587 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1237 (N.D.Ga. 2022) (“As a result [of Shelby County], the State of Georgia is no longer a covered jurisdiction. The current round of redistricting is the first to be done as a result of a Decennial Census after the Shelby County ruling. Thus, this is the first time in over fifty years in which Georgia has redistricted following the Decennial Census without having to seek preclearance.”).

The State of Georgia has historically conducted redistricting in special legislative sessions. Doc. No. [152...