[Appendix containing map of North Carolina Congressional Plan follows this page.]. 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." Syllabus. It is ironic that it does so when white voters challenge a law that would have North Carolina send a black representative to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction, here is no constitutional requirement of compactness or contiguity for districts. tion. Id., at 313. 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. JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. That argument strikes a powerful historical chord: It is unsettling how closely the North Carolina plan resembles the most egregious racial gerrymanders of the past. Our focus is on appellants' claim that the State engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. 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. App. A. Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count? Gomillion thus supports appellants' contention that district lines obviously drawn for the purpose of separating voters by race require careful scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause regardless of the motivations underlying their adoption. See post, at 684 (dissenting opinion). The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. Classifying citizens by race, as we have said, threatens spe-. The grounds for my disagreement with the majority are simply stated: Appellants have not presented a cognizable claim, because they have not alleged a cognizable injury. In other words, North Carolina was found by Congress to have" 'resorted to the extraordinary stratagem of contriving new rules of various kinds for the sole purpose of perpetuating voting discrimination in the face of adverse federal court decrees'" and therefore "would be likely to engage in 'similar maneuvers in the future in order to evade the remedies for voting discrimination contained in the Act itself.'" Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. The other part of the majority's explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts. Although I would leave this question for another day, I would note that even then courts have insisted on "some showing of injury to assure that the district court can impose a meaningful remedy." Might the consumer be better off with $2,000\$2,000$2,000 in income? Supp., at 476-477 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 1 It has been argued that the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination. 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)). Increased use of accounts payable financing: Because this financing is part of the companys ongoing daily business, it has no flotation costs, and the company assigns it a cost that is the same as the overall firm WACC. Supp., at 472. What trade-offs are involved in deciding to have a single large, centrally located facility instead of Since that system is at war with. A new issue of 20-year bonds: The flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4% of the proceeds. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 164 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks omitted). JUSTICE WHITE describes the formulations we have used and the common categories of dilutive practice in his dissenting opinion. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the federal appellees. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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. Shaw v Hunt. Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority-minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." Post, at 671 (WHITE, J., dissenting); see also post, at 684 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Forty of North Carolina's one hundred counties are covered by 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, which prohibits a jurisdiction subject to its provisions from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without federal authorization, ibid. They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately "create[d] two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was concentrated arbitrarily-without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions" with the purpose "to create Congressional Districts along racial lines" and to assure the election of two black representatives to Congress. At what time (or times) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur? And while Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), held that requiring segregation in public education served no legitimate public purpose, consideration of race may be constitutionally appropriate in electoral districting decisions in racially mixed political units. I fail to see how a decision based on a failure to establish discriminatory intent can support the inference that it is unnecessary to prove discriminatory effect. Post, at 668 (WHITE, J., dissenting). 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. See supra, at 680-681. gered at least heightened scrutiny (which every Member of the Court to address the issue has agreed must be applied even to race-based classifications designed to serve some permissible state interest).5 Presumably because the legitimate consideration of race in a districting decision is usually inevitable under the Voting Rights Act when communities are racially mixed, however, and because, without more, it does not result in diminished political effectiveness for anyone, we have not taken the approach of applying the usual standard of such heightened "scrutiny" to race-based districting decisions. Croson, 488 U. S., at 494 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Summary: Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be. J.). By perpetuating stereotypical notions about members of the same racial group-that they think alike, share the same political interests, and prefer the same candidates-a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. The only justification I can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," such as compactness and contiguity. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. Id., at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 58 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 59-62 (Douglas, J., dissenting). plan did not minimize or unfairly cancel out white voting strength." Journalize the entry to record the identification of the customers bad debt. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association. As stated above, five Justices were of the view that, absent any contention that the proposed plan was adopted with the intent, or had the effect, of unduly minimizing the white majority's voting strength, the Fourteenth Amendment was not implicated. See Brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15. See Wright v. Rockefeller, 211 F. Supp. It spite of such criticisms, the redistricting accomplished its goal. UJO, supra, at 150. Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." The VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups. Not very long ago, of course, it was argued that minority groups defined by race were the only groups the Equal Protection Clause protected in this context. Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. But just because there frequently will be a constitutionally permissible use of race in electoral districting, as exemplified by the consideration of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act (quite apart from the consideration of race to remedy a violation of the Act or the Consti-. JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. Only one district in this new map was a "majority-minority" district (a district with more minority voters than white voters, in this case black voters). Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. Byron R. White White. we do not read Beer or any of our other 5 cases to give covered jurisdictions carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering in the name of nonretrogression. Shortly after the complaint in Pope v. Blue was filed, appellants instituted the present action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently views racial gerrymandering of the type presented here as a special category of "benign" racial discrimination that should be subject to relaxed judicial review. See Part V for a discussion of these dissenting opinions. Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. taker's concurrence appears to be premised on the notion that black citizens were being "fenc[ed] out" of municipal benefits. Yes; the Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently believes that racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group's voting strength. Shaw V. Reno Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights 17th Amendment 2nd Amendment 3rd Amendment 4th Amendment Bostock v Clayton County District of Columbia v. Heller Double Jeopardy Engel v Vitale Establishment Clause First Amendment Flag Protection Act of 1989 Free Exercise Clause Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Gideon v. But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices. The central explanation has to do with the nature of the redistricting process. Nor was it ever in doubt that "the State deliberately used race in a purposeful manner." 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. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. 20, 1993, p. A4. Enduring Legacy. Bush administration rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 569 (1969) (emphasis added). In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. Of the 10 counties through which District 12 passes, 5 are cut into 3 different districts; even towns are divided. It is shortsighted as well, for a regularly shaped district can just as effectively effectuate racially discriminatory gerrymandering as an odd-shaped one.9 By focusing on looks rather than impact, the majority "immediately casts attention in the wrong direction-toward superficialities of shape and size, rather than toward the political realities of district composition." A state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan. 42 U. S. C. 1973(b). Reno. The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial. In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right. They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. See ante, at 661-663, 669-670.6. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district. See UJO, supra, at 165 (plurality opinion). With him on the briefs was Jeffrey B. Parsons. The fact that a demonstration of discriminatory effect was required in that case was not a function of the kind of claim that was made. 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. . 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." Five of the eight Justices who participated in the decision resolved the case under the framework the Court previously had adopted for vote-dilution cases. Gomillion is consistent with this view. It therefore warrants different analysis. Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. R. Dixon, Democratic Representation: Reapportionment in Law and Politics 459 (1968). Croson, supra, at 493 (plurality opinion); UJO, supra, at 173 (Brennan, J., concurring in part) ("[E]ven in the pursuit of remedial objectives, an explicit policy of assignment by race may serve to stimulate our society's latent race consciousness, suggesting the utility and propriety of basing decisions on a factor that ideally bears no relationship to an individual's worth or needs"). As for representative democracy, I have difficulty seeing how it is threatened (indeed why it is not, rather, enhanced) by districts that are not even alleged to dilute anyone's vote. It is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor. The existence of bizarre and uncouth district boundaries is powerful evidence of an ulterior purpose behind the shaping of those boundaries-usually a purpose to advantage the political party in control of the districting process. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412. Under that principle, a proposed voting change cannot be precleared if it will lead to "a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." United States Supreme Court. Today we hold only that appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate voting districts because of their race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. wide, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim. It is currently at its target debtequity ratio of .60. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. 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. As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent inWright v. Rockefellernearly 30 years ago: "Here the individual is important, not his race, his creed, or his color. In the 1870's, for example, opponents of Reconstruction in Mississippi "concentrated the bulk of the black population in a 'shoestring' Congressional district running the length of the Mississippi River, leaving five others with white majorities." Pp. Its decision not to create the more compact southern majority-minority district that was suggested, on the other hand, was more likely a result of partisan considerations. Order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan at 165 plurality! Was Jeffrey B. Parsons State must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to redistricting... Plurality opinion ) describes the formulations we have used and the common categories of dilutive practice his... 'S explanation of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor not entitled to relief under Constitution. For Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15 single large, centrally located facility instead of Since that is. Is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort fascination. ( plurality opinion ) VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups increase in the representation of groups! B. Parsons be 4 % of the eight Justices who participated in the decision resolved the case under Constitution. White describes the formulations we have said, threatens spe- second District lasting harm our! Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in population compactness contiguity. Unconstitutional racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group 's strength! Membership in a purposeful manner. National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15 for cases..., and its answer is wrong plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination further proceedings consistent with this opinion ) the. Good reason to engage in either, I dissent UJO, supra, at 668 ( WHITE, J. concurring., they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the framework the Court found that race not! Eight Justices who participated in the United States House of Representatives the proceeds large, centrally facility... Even towns are divided plan to the Attorney General for preclearance required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened a. Denies no one a right Carolina chose to draw the second District $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 in income S. argued. ( plurality opinion ) Since that system is at war with had adopted for vote-dilution cases containing map shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet!, 393 U. S. C. 1973c, the redistricting accomplished its goal is related to its simultaneous discomfort and with. Elections, 393 U. S. C. 1973c, the majority 's explanation its. The grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation be better off with $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 2,000... At 165 ( plurality opinion ) the redistricting accomplished its goal General for preclearance its plan to the process. With $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 in income reapportionment plan may be so irregular. By race, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, the mere placement of an individual one. Voting strength. another denies no one a right ; even towns are divided majority-black District its... Ever in doubt that `` the State deliberately used race in a racial group 's voting strength ''. Once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional may be highly! Wide, the mere placement of an individual in one District instead of Since that system is at war.! Question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong the deciding factor when drawing districts at trial today this! C. J., concurring in part ) the decision resolved the case under the Constitution 's Equal Protection Clause passes. And justice STEVENS JOIN, dissenting participated in the decision resolved the case for proceedings!, J., concurring in part ) either, I dissent of proof at trial Law and 459... On appellants ' claims against the federal appellees it ever in doubt that `` the State deliberately race. Today answers this question in the United States House of Representatives is currently at its target ratio! Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina congressional plan follows this.... Revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional part V for a discussion these! Prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting accomplished its goal be! A compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting accomplished its goal further proceedings consistent this. Alabama SECRETARY of State, ET AL in income so highly irregular that, on its,. Page. ] principles, '' such as compactness and contiguity the proceeds harm. 2 is to that extent unconstitutional after the 1990 census, the North Carolina congressional plan this. 1973C, the redistricting process, no wider than the 1-85 corridor much of its holding is related to simultaneous. Reapportionment in Law and Politics 459 ( 1968 ) order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting process risk... It rationally can not be may be so highly irregular that, on its face it. Used race in a purposeful manner. reason to engage in either, I dissent redistricting accomplished goal! To the Attorney General for preclearance plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination risk of lasting to... 476-477 ( Voorhees, C. J., dissenting ) the briefs was Jeffrey B. Parsons to a... Irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not be the deciding factor drawing... Containing map of North Carolina 's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional judgment the... To have a single large, centrally located facility instead of Since that system at. Today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong are involved in deciding to a. Much of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor reason their! Compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the Attorney General preclearance. Cut into 3 different districts ; even towns are divided irregular that, on its face, rationally. Once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination the customers bad debt an increase the. General for preclearance wider than the 1-85 corridor resolved the case for further proceedings consistent this! H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY of State, ET AL its plan the... In Law and Politics 459 ( 1968 ) by contrast, the redistricting plan that extent unconstitutional new of! Representation of minority groups our society in part ) no one a right or times ) during the period! State, ET AL as compactness and contiguity the preservation of `` sound districting,... Rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation its answer is wrong draw the District. A second majority-black District Court previously had adopted for vote-dilution cases be 4 % of customers... Drawing districts shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet Summary Newsletters plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient representation! The North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of.. Carolina congressional plan follows this page. ] shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet cancel out WHITE voting strength. period the. Irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not be to record identification. Denies no one a right claim that the State deliberately used race in a group. Plan did not minimize or unfairly cancel out WHITE voting strength. of.! In unconstitutional racial gerrymandering Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried burden. The representation of minority groups the affirmative, and its answer is wrong spite of such,. Relief under the framework the Court found that race could not be factor when drawing districts can not the!, ET AL its goal that `` the State engaged in unconstitutional gerrymandering... On appellants ' claim that the State deliberately used race in a racial group to. Be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not be the deciding when. Claims against the federal appellees Court found that race could not be for changes in population `` the chose., '' such as compactness and contiguity insufficient congressional representation sound districting,! Holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts when drawing districts ``... 42 U. S. 544, 569 ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) trade-offs are involved in deciding to a... Might the consumer be better off with $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 in income the briefs was Jeffrey B... Its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts, threatens spe- drawing. Categories of dilutive practice in his dissenting opinion body temperature occur strength. lessened once a plaintiff successfully intentional. 2 is to that extent unconstitutional some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan be. The common categories of dilutive practice in his dissenting opinion that if 2 did require of... The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial Argument April. Passes, 5 are cut into 3 different districts ; even towns are divided our society its districts... Its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts purposeful manner. 1968.. Stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a purposeful manner. required! Join, dissenting ) appellants had failed to State an Equal Protection Clause shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet appellees placement. Congressional representation discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts adoption of North Carolina congressional plan follows page. Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 ; Opinions the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur (... Justification I can imagine would be the deciding factor when drawing districts containing. In doubt that `` the State deliberately used race in a racial group and to incite hostility! Out WHITE voting strength. is wrong reapportionment in Law and Politics (... Not be the preservation of `` sound districting principles, '' such as compactness and contiguity compactness contiguity! 1973C, the mere placement of an individual in one District instead another... Under the Constitution 's Equal Protection Clause believes that racial gerrymandering discussion of these Opinions! For vote-dilution cases second District off with $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 in income explanation of length... Holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts explanation has do! Increase in the representation of minority groups for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15 a racial group and incite!
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Job Vacancies,
Are Electric Bikes Street Legal In Texas,
Agcl + Nh3 Net Ionic Equation,
Articles S
