Case 1:22-cv-00272-PLM-RMK-DML ECF No. 193, PageID.5972 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`DONALD AGEE, JR., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOCELYN BENSON, in her official
`
`
`capacity as the Secretary of State
`of Michigan, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 1:22-cv-272
`
`Three Judge Court
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`PER CURIAM. On December 21, 2023, we unanimously held that the Michigan
`
`Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
`
`U.S. Constitution when it drew the boundaries of thirteen state-legislative districts—seven
`
`House districts, and six Senate—predominantly on the basis of race. We therefore enjoined
`
`the Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, from holding further elections in those
`
`districts as they were drawn. (ECF No. 131). The Commission has now submitted a revised
`
`Senate map, which Plaintiffs agree “eliminates the predominate use of race that
`
`characterized” the previous plan. (ECF No. 184, 185). We have reviewed the record before
`
`us and agree that the new Senate map complies with this court’s December 21, 2023, opinion
`
`and order.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Under Michigan law, the State will hold its next Senate elections in 2026. We
`
`therefore ordered the Commission to adopt a remedial Senate map before those elections
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`DONALD AGEE, JR., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOCELYN BENSON, in her official
`
`
`capacity as the Secretary of State
`of Michigan, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 1:22-cv-272
`
`Three Judge Court
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`PER CURIAM. On December 21, 2023, we unanimously held that the Michigan
`
`Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
`
`U.S. Constitution when it drew the boundaries of thirteen state-legislative districts—seven
`
`House districts, and six Senate—predominantly on the basis of race. We therefore enjoined
`
`the Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, from holding further elections in those
`
`districts as they were drawn. (ECF No. 131). The Commission has now submitted a revised
`
`Senate map, which Plaintiffs agree “eliminates the predominate use of race that
`
`characterized” the previous plan. (ECF No. 184, 185). We have reviewed the record before
`
`us and agree that the new Senate map complies with this court’s December 21, 2023, opinion
`
`and order.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Under Michigan law, the State will hold its next Senate elections in 2026. We
`
`therefore ordered the Commission to adopt a remedial Senate map before those elections
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00272-PLM-RMK-DML ECF No. 193, PageID.5973 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`take place. (ECF No. 156). We also appointed two special masters to assist the court during
`
`the remedial map-drawing process. As relevant to the Senate map, we appointed Dr. Bernard
`
`Grofman to evaluate the Commission’s remedial plan and to offer the court his advice as to
`
`whether that plan lawfully remedies the constitutional violations identified in our December
`
`21, 2023, opinion and order. (ECF No. 178).
`
`
`
`In response to our December 21, 2023, opinion and order, the Commission adopted
`
`several procedures for drawing its revised maps. Two are relevant here. First, the
`
`Commission unanimously voted to “establish a map-drawing process” that began “by all
`
`Commissioners proceeding with no consideration of race and with race turned off wherever
`
`possible on any map drawing software.” See 1/11/2024 MICRC Tr. at 44-45. That resolution
`
`also provided that—after the Commission had “prepared” a draft map in race-neutral
`
`fashion—it would send the map to its Voting Right Act counsel for analysis. Id. Second, the
`
`Commission chose to draw its remedial district lines from a blank slate. See MICRC Tr.
`
`1/11/24 at 42; 1/16/24 at 11, 18.
`
`
`
`The Commission eventually put forward twelve different maps for public comment,
`
`each of which revised the configurations for Michigan Senate Districts 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 11.
`
`(ECF No. 182). After three public hearings in Detroit, the Commission selected the “Crane
`
`A1” plan. (ECF No. 184).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs filed “a statement of non-objection” to the new Crane A1 Senate map, in
`
`which they stated that the map “eliminates the former ‘spoke concept,’ reduces county splits,
`
`is reasonably compact, has an appropriate core retention, enhances minority voting
`
`opportunity, maintains an acceptable partisan balance, and does not evidence any
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00272-PLM-RMK-DML ECF No. 193, PageID.5974 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`impermissible reliance upon race.” (ECF No. 185 at PageID.5893-94). Plaintiffs relied on
`
`the report of their expert, Dr. Sean Trende, who concluded that the remedial map “appear[s]
`
`to eliminate the predominate use of race that characterized the previous plan.” (ECF No.
`
`185-1).
`
`
`
`Dr. Grofman also submitted a report in which he concluded that the Commission’s
`
`remedial plan “adequately addresses the constitutional concerns of the Court by offering a
`
`plan in which race is not a preponderant motive and in which the criteria specified by the
`
`Michigan Constitution are satisfied.” (ECF No. 190). Among other things, Dr. Grofman
`
`observed that the new districts are more compact, and that none of the six invalidated districts
`
`have more than a 60% overlap with their district’s previous configuration. (ECF No. 190 at
`
`PageID.5935). Dr. Grofman also noted the substantial demographic shifts in the Crane A1
`
`Senate map. Crane A1 includes two majority-minority districts (SD 3, SD 6), one minority
`
`opportunity district (SD 1), and one potential minority opportunity district (SD 7).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Crane A1 Senate Districts
`
`Black Voting Age Percentage
`in Democratic Primaries
`
`Age
`Voting
`White
`Percentage in Democratic
`Primaries
`
`SD 1
`
`SD 3
`
`SD 6
`
`SD 7
`
`23.2%
`
`13.8%
`
`10.8%
`
`30.6%
`
`46.9%
`
`75.4%
`
`77.3%
`
`31.2%
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00272-PLM-RMK-DML ECF No. 193, PageID.5975 Filed 07/26/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`II.
`
`After a court holds that electoral districts violate federal law, the court must typically
`
`afford the relevant state actor an adequate opportunity to prepare its own remedial-
`
`redistricting plan. See McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 150 n.30 (1981) (collecting cases).
`
`During the process of drawing a remedial plan, the federal court should restrict the state
`
`actor only as required by “the clear commands of federal law.” North Carolina v. Covington,
`
`585 U.S. 969, 979 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`III.
`
`Here, everyone agrees that the new Crane A1 Senate map complies with federal law
`
`to the extent the Commission did not impermissibly rely upon race when drafting it. Plaintiffs
`
`do not object to the new map. And the Reviewing Special Master, Dr. Grofman,
`
`recommended approving it.
`
`The record reflects that the Crane A1 Senate map was drawn race-blind. The
`
`Commission is entitled to a presumption of legislative good faith. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S.
`
`579, 603 (2018). And we must be “sensitive to the complex interplay of forces that enter a
`
`legislature’s redistricting calculus.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915–16 (1995). We note
`
`that Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 144 S. Ct. 1221 (2024),
`
`decided after we filed our original order in December of last year, is inapplicable here
`
`because it dealt with the quantum of evidence required for a racial gerrymandering claim
`
`based on circumstantial evidence. By contrast, our December 21, 2023, order relied on
`
`direct evidence.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00272-PLM-RMK-DML ECF No. 193, PageID.5976 Filed 07/26/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`We have reviewed the record before us and agree that the new Senate map complies
`
`with this court’s December 21, 2023 order. Federal law provides us no basis to reject the
`
`Commission’s remedial Senate plan. The Secretary of State may proceed to implement the
`
`Commission’s remedial Senate plan for the next election cycle.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: July 26, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Raymond M. Kethledge
`Raymond M. Kethledge
`United States Circuit Judge
`
`/s/ Paul L. Maloney
`Paul L. Maloney
`United States District Judge
`
`/s/ David M. Lawson
`David M. Lawson
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
