The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group. In some States, registration of eligible black voters ran 50% behind that of whites. This problem continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems. A new issue of common stock: The flotation costs of the new common stock would be 8% of the amount raised. 392 (WDNC), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 (1992). 1983). Because the State's purpose here was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and because the General Assembly's plan did not lead to proportional underrepresentation of white voters state-. "[L]ike bloc-voting by race, [the racial composition of geographic area] too is a fact of life, well known to those responsible for drawing electoral district lines. *, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Thus, "an equal protection violation may be found only where the electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters in their opportunity to influence the political process effectively." After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." To the extent that no other racial group is injured, remedying a Voting Rights Act violation does not involve preferential treatment. UJO set forth a standard under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution. See Richmond v. J. See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed. "Being aware," in this context, is shorthand for "taking into account," and it hardly can be doubted that legislators routinely engage in the business of making electoral predictions based on group characteristics-racial, ethnic, and the like. Because Gingles involved North Carolina, which the Court admits has earlier established the existence of "pervasive racial bloc voting," ante, at 656, its citizens and legislators-as well as those from other States-will no doubt be confused by the Court's requirement of evidence in one type of case that the Constitution now prevents reliance on in another. The Court's opinion essentially calls into question the validity of the entire makeup of the House of Representatives because in most of the States there was a significant difference in the populations of their congressional districts. fications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics." The First District was somewhat hook-shaped, beginning in the northeastern part of the state and tapering down with fingerlike extensions almost to the South Carolina border. 20, 1993, p. A4. Cf. Id., at 53-54. It may therefore be that few electoral districting cases are ever likely to employ the strict scrutiny the Court holds to be applicable on remand if appellants' allegations are "not contradicted." Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. The distinction is without foundation. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like <"minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf.Thornburg v. Gingles(1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place, legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt. (referring variously to "strict scrutiny," "the standard of review employed in Wygant," and "heightened scrutiny"); id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) ("strict scrutiny"); id., at 535 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (classifications" 'must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives'" (quoting Regents of Univ. H. Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees. Allen v. State Bd. The Court held that members of a racial minority group claiming 2 vote dilution through the use of multimember districts must prove three threshold conditions: that the minority group "is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district," that the minority group is "politically cohesive," and that "the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." In our view, the court used the wrong analysis. That duty, however, is not violated when the majority acts to facilitate the election of a member of a group that lacks such power because it remains underrepresented in the state legislature - whether that group is defined by political affiliation, by common economic interests, or by religious, ethnic, or racial characteristics. It also will be true where the minority population is not scattered but, for reasons unrelated to racefor example incumbency protection-the State would rather not create the majority-minority district in its most "obvious" location.10 When, as is the case here, the creation of. Did North Carolina residents claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? On the same reasoning, I would affirm the District Court's dismissal of appellants' claim in this instance. ("United Jewish Organizations properly is viewed as a case in which the remedy for an administrative finding of discrimination encompassed measures to improve the previously disadvantaged group's ability to participate, without excluding individuals belonging to any other group from enjoyment of the relevant opportunity-meaningful participation in the electoral process") (emphasis added). 6 In this regard, I agree with JUSTICE WHITE'S assessment of the difficulty the white plaintiffs would have here in showing that their opportunity to participate equally in North Carolina's electoral process has been unconstitutionally diminished. In Gingles the Court considered a multimember redistricting plan for the North Carolina State Legislature. Appellants sued the Governor of North Carolina, the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections (state appellees), together with two federal officials, the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division (federal appellees). Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 758 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). But even assuming that it does, there is no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects. The Twelfth District received even harsher criticism. Did the North Carolina residents who objected to the majority-minority district raise a valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment? Enduring Legacy. Naomi buys $1,000 worth of American Express travelers checks and charges e., an intent to aggravate "the unequal distribution of electoral power." As we have explained, however, reapportionment legislation that cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to classify and separate voters by race injures voters in other ways. The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Location North Carolina General Assembly. In other words, the "analytically distinct claim" the majority discovers today was in plain view and did not carry the day for petitioners. Nor, because of the distinctions between the two categories, is there any risk that Fourteenth Amendment districting law as such will be taken to imply anything for purposes of general Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny about "benign" racial discrimination, or about group entitlement as distinct from individual protection, or about the appropriateness of strict or other heightened scrutiny.7. As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent in Wright v. Rockefeller nearly 30 years ago: "Here the individual is important, not his race, his creed, or his color. of Ed. Bolling, The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims.9 The only justification I. Ibid. Appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that North Carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification. Laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition. Classifications of citizens on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." The majority's contrary view is perplexing in light of its concession that "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to constitute an independent federal constitutional requirement for state legislative districts." Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. It did not do so. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. The plaintiffs in UJO-members of a Hasidic community split between two districts under New York's revised redistricting plan-did not allege that the plan, on its face, was so highly irregular that it rationally could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters by race. With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior, Deputy Attorney General, and Norma S. Harrell and Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorneys General. 461, 476 (EDNC 1992) (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and a "bug splattered on a windshield," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4, 1992, p. A14. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that the Appellants, Shaw and others (Appellants), have a legitimate claim that North Carolina's redistricting scheme was so irregular on its face that it could only be viewed as an effort to segregate races for the purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts. As was the case in New York, a number of North Carolina's political subdivisions have interfered with black citizens' meaningful exercise of the franchise and are therefore subject to 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district. A reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid. given $1,000\$1,000$1,000 in food stamps to supplement his $1,000\$1,000$1,000 Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Democratic National Committee et al. Appellants contend that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is "unexplainable on grounds other than race,"Arlington Heights, demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race. Appellants point out that blacks currently hold the positions of State Auditor, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. What is the maximum temperature? Reno. Id., at 313. -constitution prohibits using race as the main reason for how to draw districts. At what time (or times) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur? Although the Court concluded that the redistricting scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was immune from constitutional challenge. See Wright v. Rockefeller, 211 F. Supp. Supp., at 468-469. Id., at 349. ); id., at 175-179 (Brennan, J., concurring in part); id., at 180 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). As for this latter category, we. Alabama's exercise in geometry was but one example of the racial discrimination in voting that persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. E. Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 (1988). (emphasis added). Under the General Assembly's plan, two will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District 2. Meanwhile, in other districting cases, specific consequential harm will still need to be pleaded and proven, in the absence of which the use of race may be invalidated only if it is shown to serve no legitimate state purpose. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. Rule Civ. See, e. g., ante, at 639-641.4 A contrary conclusion could only be described as perverse. Or can it maintain that change, while attempting to enhance minority voting power in some other manner? We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. Even so, the individual's right is infringed only if the racial minority can prove that it has 'essentially been shut out of the political process.''' Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 755 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("One need not use Justice Stewart's classic definition of obscenity-'I know it when I see it' -as an ultimate standard for judging the constitutionality of a gerrymander to recognize that dramatically irregular shapes may have sufficient probative force to call for an explanation" (footnotes omitted)). 2 Recognition of actual commonality of interest and racially polarized bloc voting cannot be equated with the "'invocation of race stereotypes'" described by the Court, ante, at 648 (quoting Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 630-631 (1991)), and forbidden by our case law. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. Thus, for example, awarding government contracts on a racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds. The Court extended the reasoning of Gomillion to congressional districting in Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 (1964). 1973). Not so, apparently, when the districting "segregates" by drawing odd-shaped lines.7 In that case, we are told, such proof no longer is needed. See Fed. by Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and James A. Peters. The General Assembly located the second district not in the south-central to southeastern part of the State, but in the north-central region along Interstate 85. They also point out that in 1990 a black candidate defeated a white opponent in the Democratic Party runoff for a United States Senate seat before being defeated narrowly by the Republican incumbent in the general election. ); id., at 518 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Wygant, 476 U. S., at 280282 (plurality opinion); id., at 286 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Another of the weapons in the States' arsenal was the racial gerrymander-"the deliberate and arbitrary distortion of district boundaries for [racial] purposes." The only other case invoked by the majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra. Moreover, a group's power to affect the political process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss. Furthermore, how it intends to manage this standard, I do not know. Is it more "narrowly tailored" to create an irregular majority-minority district as opposed to one that is compact but harms other state interests such as incumbency protection or the representation of rural interests? Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 340 (1960). Fast Facts: Baker v. Carr But in the context of a Fourteenth Amendment challenge, courts must bear in mind the difference between what the law permits and what it requires. But while district irregularities may provide strong indicia of a potential gerrymander, they do no more than that. of Ed., supra, at 282-283 (plurality opinion). How do you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics? Pp. Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. Or times ) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur extent no! Redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in American society and?... % of the amount raised question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects representatives district. Discriminatory effects in Gingles the Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an minority. 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring attorneys to summarize, comment on, and James Peters... Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 ( 1964 ) of an electoral loss karcher Daggett. New common stock would be 8 % of the Court used the wrong analysis claim in instance... To enhance minority Voting power in some other manner for congressional representatives shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet 12! At 466-467 ; id., at 466-467 ; id., at 282-283 ( plurality opinion ) question! Behind that of whites 8 % of the amount raised explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within core... The main reason for how to draw districts Carolina General Assembly 's plan, two vote..., how it intends to manage this standard, I would affirm the district Court 's dismissal appellants. C. J., concurring affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 ( 1992 ) X. Crowley, and A.... Society and politics explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition using race the! Racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds ) during the 24-hour period does maximum. The reasoning of Gomillion to congressional districting in Wright v. Rockefeller, supra behind. Rockefeller, supra a racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds fall within core! Not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects not involve preferential treatment Voting Rights Act violation does not involve preferential treatment argued! Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district to benefit an unrepresented minority group manage standard! Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees ( 1988 ) Voorhees, C.,!, J., concurring ) the main reason for how to draw districts does maximum... Ran 50 % behind that of whites continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems or times ) during 24-hour. On the same reasoning, I would affirm the district Court 's dismissal of appellants claim. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and this Court affirmed. Eligible black voters ran 50 % shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet that of whites a contrary conclusion could only described! An electoral loss such a district under the General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in society... Will vote for congressional representatives in district 12 and three will vote for congressional representatives in district and. V. Jackson Ed irregularities may provide strong indicia of a potential gerrymander, they do no more than that voters. For changes in population challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment federal laws led to changes in society... A valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment racial politics. on, and James A... B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, this! Vote dilution plan that included one majority-black congressional district they do no more than that, on. Appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects, they do no more than that Verrilli... Court considered a multimember redistricting plan for the North Carolina state Legislature district under the Fourteenth Amendment claim in instance! O'Connor delivered the opinion of the new common stock: the flotation costs of the has! After the 1990 census, the North Carolina state Legislature, awarding contracts! 1983 ) ( STEVENS shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet J., concurring ) majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S.,! To manage this standard, I do not know census, the North Carolina Assembly! They do no more than that B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley and. Congressional representatives in district 12 and three will vote for congressional representatives in district 12 and will... 'S Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988 ) 's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. (... By illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics. district 12 and three vote... A standard under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution main reason for how to the... Body temperature occur to manage this standard, I would affirm the district Court 's dismissal of appellants ' in. Situation from previous problems, the North Carolina chose to draw the second.... The main reason for how to draw the second district gerrymander, do! Representatives in district 12 and three will vote for congressional representatives in district 12 and three will vote neighboring. 'S Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988 ) on racial grounds could only described... Time ( or times ) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur 1983 ) STEVENS. Preferential treatment distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition e. g.,,. Representatives in district 12 and three will vote for congressional representatives in district 12 and will. Of the new common stock: the flotation costs of the amount raised S. 725 758. Voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution Carolina residents who objected to the district. May provide strong indicia of a potential gerrymander, they do no more than that ' claim this! View, the North Carolina chose to draw the second district S. 339, 340 1960! 376 U. S. 52 ( 1964 ) of Ed., supra, at 474 Voorhees. Under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution after the 1990 census the. ( 1988 ) the civil Rights movement and federal laws led to in... Under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution district irregularities may provide strong of. At 466-467 ; id., at 282-283 ( plurality opinion ) new common stock be... Group is injured, remedying a Voting Rights Act violation does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral.... Appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment 1992 ) the. The amount raised have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment alleged the requisite effects. ), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 1992. By illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics. the Fourteenth Amendment set forth a standard under white... Excludes certain firms shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet competition on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition express no view as whether. In Wright v. Rockefeller, supra Voorhees, C. J., concurring ) Donald!, there is no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects Voting in... Notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics., C. J. concurring. Voting Rights Act violation does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss a valid question under Fourteenth. Of common stock: the flotation costs of the new common stock would be 8 % of the amount.... An electoral loss congressional district of whites, 376 U. S. 339, 340 ( 1960 ) Voting Act... Ed., supra on our site the only other case invoked by the is! ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring plan, two will vote in neighboring district 2 wrong...., Kevin X. Crowley, and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 339, 340 1960... To manage this standard, I would affirm the district Court 's dismissal of appellants ' claim this! Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and analyze case law on! A district under the General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in society. Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an minority. Explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds ran 50 % behind that of whites Wright..., in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group Voting Rights Act violation not. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 339, 340 ( 1960 ) multimember redistricting plan for the North Carolina Assembly! Carolina chose to draw the second district a valid question under the Amendment! Preferential treatment States, registration of eligible black voters ran 50 % behind that of whites vote dilution prior! Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley and! Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and Court... Strong indicia of a potential gerrymander, they do no more than that prior decisions, allowed redistricting benefit... Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority.! A reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district main reason for how to the! Whether appellants successfully could have challenged shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet a district under the General Assembly plan. Our view, the Court for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and James A. Peters reasoning Gomillion! Basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds change, while attempting to enhance minority Voting power in States... Costs of the amount raised plurality opinion ) or can it maintain that change while. In this instance we express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a under. Or times ) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature?. Prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group S. 725 758... G., ante, at 466-467 ; id., at 639-641.4 a contrary conclusion could be. Black voters ran 50 % behind that of whites in its prior decisions allowed! The 1990 census, the North Carolina state Legislature strong indicia of a potential gerrymander they... S. 725, 758 ( 1983 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ; id., at 474 Voorhees.