BACKGROUND

In 2020, Plaintiffs, a group of African American voters in Georgia, challenged the at-large method of electing PSC commissioners under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that it impermissibly diluted the vote of Black Georgians, giving them less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. After a five-day bench trial, the district court held that the state’s at-large method of electing PSC commissioners violated Section 2 and enjoined the Secretary from administering any future PSC elections using the state-wide, at-large method.  

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the Plaintiffs had not satisfied the first Gingles precondition because their single-member district demonstration plan “impermissibly altered Georgia’s chosen form of government.” Not only is the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent idiosyncratic, immunizing judicial bodies in contravention of the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of the Gingles preconditions in Allen v. Milligan, but it was also incorrect to extend this doctrine to the PSC, a multi-member policymaking body. 

Plaintiffs now petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. They argue that as a legal matter, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision contravenes Section 2. ELC, representing the Sierra Club, filed an amicus brief in support of the Petitioners, seeking to illuminate the nature of the PSC to dispel the notion that the PSC is merely a quasi-judicial body that falls neatly within the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisprudence and to highlight the policy consequences of diluting the votes of Black residents. Amicus urges the Court to summarily reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision or set the matter for full merits consideration.