The dispute over redistricting in Michigan took a significant turn recently as the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the ongoing battle. On Jan 22, 2024, the justices, in a brief unsigned order, denied a request by Michigan’s independent redistricting commission for a hold on a lower court’s ruling. The lower court had required the commission to redraw the legislative maps for the Detroit area, asserting that the original plans relied excessively on race.
Interestingly, there was no dissent recorded from the Supreme Court’s ruling, showing a consensus amongst the justices. The refusal to intervene now paves the way for lower court proceedings to continue unabated.
The current dispute escalated when the redistricting commission — comprising randomly selected Democrats, Republicans, and independents — released a new redistricting plan that resulted in a reduced number of majority-Black state legislative districts within the Detroit area. From having two majority-Black senate districts and 10 majority-Black house districts under the former plan, the proposed new plan outlined zero and six respectively.
In response, a group of 19 Black Detroit residents filed a lawsuit in March 2022, opposing seven state senate districts and 10 house districts with black voting-age populations under 50%. The plaintiffs argued that these districts violated the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. As documented on SCOTUSblog, a three-judge federal district court largely agreed with the residents’ claims. The court concluded that the commission drew several of the Detroit-area districts with race as the primary consideration, consequently rejecting the commission’s reasoning.
In rejecting the commission’s argument, the court found no credible reason to believe that Black voters could successfully elect candidates of their choice in the districts created with Black voting-age populations ranging from 35 to 45%. This led to an injunction preventing the state from holding elections using the commission’s map, and the commission was subsequently ordered to submit new plans by Feb. 2 for approval by late March.
The commission approached the Supreme Court, requesting a hold on both the lower court’s ruling and new redistricting efforts. The commission argued that their map had adhered consistently to the Voting Rights Act and voiced concerns that if the lower court’s decision were upheld, it would create uncertainties about what compliance with the Voting Rights Act entails. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson also expressed concerns about the impact of any changes on the orderly administration of the upcoming August 2024 primary election.
However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene now clears the path for lower court proceedings to proceed, ensuring attempts to rectify what many consider as an egregious example of racial gerrymandering in recent history.