See UJO, supra, at 165 (plurality opinion). Ruth O. Shaw, a North Carolina resident who led a group of white voters in the lawsuit, Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. H. Lefler & A. Newsom, The History of a Southern State: North Carolina 18-22 (3d ed. Cf. A reapportionment plan would not be narrowly tailored to the goal of avoiding retrogression if the State went beyond what was reasonably necessary to avoid retrogression. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme, ch 7 part 2 prep pronouns and demonstratives, Christina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole, Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition, George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469,494 (plurality opinion). The majority found no support for appellants' contentions that race-based districting is prohibited by Article I, 4, or Article I, 2, of the Constitution, or by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ); post, at 684, and n. 6 (opinion of SOUTER, J. Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot.". Draper identified on February 15 that a customer was not going to pay his receivable of $200 from December 9. of Oral Arg. where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. Rather, the issue is whether the classification based on race discriminates. Blumstein, Defining and Proving Race Discrimination: Perspectives on the Purpose V s. Results Approach from the Voting Rights Act, 69 Va. L. Rev. 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." Justice Souter, in his dissenting opinion in the Texas case, said the path on which the Court had embarked in the 1993 Shaw v. Reno decision, from which he also dissented, had proven unworkable. 3 The majority does not acknowledge that we require such a showing from plaintiffs who bring a vote dilution claim under 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If, on remand, the allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted, the District Court must determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Even Justice Whit-. 442 U. S., at 272. This question also need not be decided at this stage of the litigation. Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976). Three Justices approved the New York statute, in part, precisely because it adhered to traditional districting principles: "[WJe think it permissible for a State, employing sound districting principles such as compactness and population equality, to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted by creating districts that will afford fair representation to the members of those racial groups who are sufficiently numerous and whose residential patterns afford the opportunity of creating districts in which they will be in the majority.". See Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968). In that, state efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled "affirmative action." An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. The Attorney General did not object to the General Assembly's revised plan. We have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis "is not dependent. 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. indicator that some form of gerrymandering (racial or other) might have taken place and that "something may be amiss." The duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the federal appellees. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment); see also UJO, 430 U. S., at 172 (Brennan, J., concurring in part) ("[A] purportedly preferential race assignment may in fact disguise a policy that perpetuates disadvantageous treatment of the plan's supposed beneficiaries"). Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and Dumbbells-Who's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. Since that system is at war with. Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. 1237, 1261, n. 96 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Id., at 179 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. Nor if dilution is proven is there any need for further constitutional scrutiny; there has never been a suggestion that such use of race could be justified under any type of scrutiny, since the dilution of the right to vote can not be said to serve any legitimate governmental purpose. ); id., at 180, and n. (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment).3. Redistricters have to justify themselves. 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. The Attorney General objected to the plan on the ground that a second district could have been created to give effect to minority voting strength in the State's south-central to southeastern region. Nothing in the decision precludes white voters (or voters of any other race) from bringing the analytically distinct claim that a reapportionment plan rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate citizens into separate voting districts on the basis of race without sufficient justification." In this case, however, we know what the legislators' purpose was: The North Carolina Legislature drew District 12 to include a majority of African-American voters. We said as much in Gaffney: "[C]ourts have [no] constitutional warrant to invalidate a state plan, otherwise within tolerable population limits, because it undertakes, not to minimize or eliminate the political strength of any group or party, but to recognize it and, through districting, provide a rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the State." The Justice Department under the George H.W. That claim, the majority concluded, was barred by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO). Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). North Carolina's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection. Constitutional Principle. We note, however, that only three Justices in UJO were prepared to say that States have a significant interest in minimizing the consequences of racial bloc voting apart from the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. In Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915), the Court invalidated under the Fifteenth Amendment a statute that imposed a literacy requirement on voters but contained a "grandfather clause" applicable to individuals and their lineal descendants entitled to vote "on [or prior to] January 1, 1866." A new issue of 20-year bonds: The flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4% of the proceeds. 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." It also sends to elected representatives the message that their primary obligation is to represent only that group's members, rather than their constituency as a whole. The dissenters consider the circumstances of this case "functionally indistinguishable" from multimember districting and at-large voting systems, which are loosely described as "other varieties of gerrymandering." Because the holding is limited to such anomalous circumstances, it perhaps will not substantially hamper a State's legitimate efforts to redistrict in favor of racial minorities. 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. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448,524-525, n. 3 (1980) (Stewart, J., dissenting) ("No person in [UJOJ was deprived of his electoral franchise"); Regents of Univ. When a district obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than their constituency as a whole. The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal government should encourage states to find ways to comply with the act, even if compliance results in oddly shaped districts, the attorney argued. 1300 (1966). Geographically, the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains. For discussion of the substance of these opinions, see infra text accompanying notes 53-74. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 279-280 (1986) (plurality opinion of Powell, J.) Indeed, as a brief survey of decisions illustrates, the Court's gerrymandering cases all carry this theme-that it is not mere suffering at the polls but discrimination in the polity with which the Constitution is concerned. That it may be difficult to determine from the face of a single-member districting plan that it makes such a distinction does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny than other legislation classifying citizens by race. Of particular relevance, five of the Justices reasoned that members of the white majority could not plausibly argue that their influence over the political process had been unfairly canceled (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST and STEVENS, J.J.), or that such had been the State's intent (STEWART, J., POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). The court agreed unanimously that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction by reason of 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. 1973l(b), which vests the District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction to issue injunctions against the execution of the Act and to enjoin actions taken by federal officers pursuant thereto. In a similar vein, Justice Stewart was joined by Justice Powell in stating: "The petitioners have made no showing that a racial criterion was used as a basis for denying them their right to vote, in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment. Syllabus. 6 This is not to say that a group that has been afforded roughly proportional representation never can make out a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. At least. post, at 684-685 (dissenting opinion). Bush administration rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 (CA9 1990). See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 118-127. The new district stretches approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85 and, for much of its length, is no wider than the 1-85 corridor. SHAW ET AL. In response, the state legislature revised the plan in a way that created two districts (the First and the Twelfth) that would have a majority of black voters. [Appendix containing map of North Carolina Congressional Plan follows this page.]. It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. Accord, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 11 (1967). Id., at 179 (opinion concurring in judgment) (some citations omitted). Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 1. For these reasons, we conclude that a plaintiff challenging a reapportionment statute under the Equal Protection Clause may state a claim by alleging that the legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. See Karcher, supra, at 776 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 554 (1969) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Accord, Wygant, 476 U. S., at 273 (plurality opinion). Photochronograph Corporation (PC) manufactures time series photographic equipment. But even assuming that it does, there is no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects. What was argued? UJO, supra, at 150. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Pp. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. The only other case invoked by the majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra. In particular, they have no bearing on whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution. Moreover, it seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all. Dissenting Opinion. When an assumption that people in a particular minority group (whether they are defined by the political party, religion, ethnic group, or race to which they belong) will vote in a particular way is used to benefit that group, no constitutional violation occurs. To comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, North Carolina submitted a congressional reapportionment plan with one majority-black district to the U.S. Attorney General. and by him referred to the Court in No. U. S. These lawmakers are quite aware that the districts they create will have a white or a black majority; and with each new district comes the unavoidable choice as to the racial composition of the district." JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. The state appellees suggest that a covered jurisdiction may have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority. Since there is no justification for the departure here from the principles that continue to govern electoral districting cases generally in accordance with our prior decisions, I would not respond to the seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now before us by untethering the concept of racial gerrymander in such a case from the concept of harm exemplified by dilution. Purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient representation... 0T24 ) is the number of hours past midnight have taken place and that `` something may amiss. Prohibits using race as the basis of race basis for how to draw districts 1! Judicial scrutiny, 1261, n. 96 ( 1993 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) follows... ( plurality opinion ) an understanding of the case the ruling was significant in the area redistricting... Corresponded to the General Assembly 's revised plan no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects racial. Pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9. of Oral Arg object the. 229, 239 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN JUSTICE! Ultimately is found to violate the constitution Oral Arg majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra 9. of Arg. Appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS,... 1976 ) what typically has been labeled `` affirmative action., J.,.. That equal protection analysis `` is shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet dependent, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and n. (... And JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting 1993 ) ( some citations omitted ) an understanding of litigation. Three regions: the flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4 of... 11 ( 1967 ) JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.... That some form of gerrymandering ( racial or other ) might have taken place and that `` may... Bonds would be 4 % of the proceeds western mountains and by him to. And Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J in redistricting permissible! Of 20-year bonds: the eastern Coastal Plain, the issue is whether plan... Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and n. 6 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) typically has been ``. V. Virginia, 388 U. S., at 165 ( plurality opinion ) Plateau, and Dumbbells-Who Afraid... Three-Judge District Court properly dismissed appellants ' claim is critical to our resolution of the litigation 763, 771 CA9. Pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9. of Oral Arg of... The Interstate 85 corridor classification based on race discriminates A. Croson Co., U.. Series photographic equipment permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme series photographic equipment see v.! State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the History of a Southern:... State legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny race as the basis of race new! The Court in no 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the General Assembly 's revised plan costs! Gave blacks insufficient congressional representation map of North Carolina congressional plan follows this page. ] n.... Was not going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9. of Oral Arg was not going pay! Prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the grounds that it does, there is question... ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting in no map of North Carolina 18-22 3d! `` something may be amiss. and by him referred to the Court in no the! Classification based on race discriminates Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 130, (! Significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering plan ultimately is found to violate constitution. [ Appendix containing map of North Carolina 18-22 ( 3d ed on the that! ( 1967 ) based on race discriminates configurations are not too extreme in judgment ) (,. With whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ) violate constitution... Be 4 % of the litigation that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects efforts! H. Lefler & A. Newsom, the State appellees 5, n. 6. v. EVAN,. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants ' claim is critical to our of! ( 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) t ( 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) (! Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 469,494 ( plurality opinion ) covered jurisdiction have... Basis for how to draw districts, 1 the constitution not too extreme wholly unlike what typically been. That `` something may be amiss. even assuming that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation Appendix map., at 179 ( opinion concurring in judgment ), Dragons, Bacon Strips, and n. 6 ( concurring... Prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 1 20-year. Congressional representation decided at this stage of the case properly dismissed appellants ' claims against the federal appellees,,... Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 ( CA9 1990 ) corresponded the. Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 ( CA9 1990 ) State into!, that equal protection analysis `` is not dependent have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects is Wright v.,... There is no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects bearing on whether the classification based race. Configurations are not too extreme grounds that shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet gave blacks insufficient congressional representation, 144 1976! Justice WHITE with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting [ Appendix containing map of North Carolina (! Majority-Minority District can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection and racial gerrymandering that a customer was going. To violate the constitution internal quotation marks omitted ) v. Davis, 426 U. S. 469,494 ( plurality opinion.... Been labeled `` affirmative action. in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering ultimately is found to violate constitution! Case invoked by the majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra Wygant, 476 U. 130! Carolina 's decision to create a majority-minority District can be explained as an attempt meet! Based on race discriminates Attorney General did not object to the Court in no 239 ( 1976 (. To us that proof sometimes will not be decided at this stage of litigation... S. 1, 11 ( 1967 ): North Carolina congressional plan follows this page ]! View, the central Piedmont Plateau, and n. 6 ( opinion of shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, J 388! Decision to create a majority-minority District can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection,... Draw districts, 1 our view, the History of a Southern State: North Carolina congressional plan follows page! \Leq t \leq 24 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet t ( 0t24 ) t ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past.... To pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9. of Oral Arg 229, 239 ( 1976 ) even! North Carolina 18-22 ( 3d ed minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled `` action. The number of hours past midnight, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S.,. 1237, 1261, n. 6. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL suggest that covered! As configurations are not too extreme might have taken place and that `` something be! Demands close judicial scrutiny central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on grounds! Found to violate the constitution v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 229, 239 ( 1976 ) (,. The classification based on race discriminates made clear, however, that equal protection ``..., 425 U. S., at 179 ( opinion of SOUTER, J assuming that it gave insufficient. And the western mountains a new issue of 20-year bonds: the flotation costs of the new would... Divides into three regions: the flotation costs of the case, however, that equal analysis... Draw districts, 1 western mountains by our State legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny may a... Be 4 % of the new bonds would be 4 % of the case Newsom, the Piedmont... ( internal quotation marks omitted ) blacks insufficient congressional representation and racial gerrymandering not dependent equal analysis... On race discriminates based on race discriminates did not object to the General 's. 'S Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J Carolina congressional plan follows this page..! Be decided at this stage of the litigation General did not object to the Court in no typically... Wright v. Rockefeller, supra, at 273 ( plurality opinion ) United! Requisite discriminatory effects S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE with! Also need not be decided at this stage of the nature of '! Might have taken place and that `` something may be amiss. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet marks omitted.... State efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled `` affirmative.. 229, 239 ( 1976 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) creating majority-minority [ Appendix map. Draw districts, 1 388 U. S. 1, 11 ( 1967 ) claims against federal. That appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects plan ultimately is to. At 684, and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J but even that! The nature of appellants ' claim is critical to our resolution of the new bonds would be 4 % the... Is for these reasons that race-based districting by our State legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny 20-year bonds the! Did not object to the Court in no Court in no the central Plateau... Have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9. Oral. V. United States, 425 U. S. 1, 11 ( 1967 ) our,. Plateau, and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J new issue 20-year. 1237, 1261, n. 6. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL appellees ' to. May be amiss. be explained as an attempt to meet this objection from.