517 U.S. at 905-906
After the 1990 census, North Carolina’s congressional delegation increased from eleven to twelve members.1 The State General Assembly adopted Chapter 601, which created one majority-black district known as District 1 in the northeastern region of the state.2 The legislature submitted the plan to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.3 The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights objected because the plan failed to give effect to black and Native American voting strength in the south-central to southeastern part of the state.4
The legislature then enacted Chapter 7, which added a second majority-black district, District 12, located in the north-central Piedmont region rather than the area specified in the objection letter.5 The Attorney General precleared the revised plan.6 District 1 is hook shaped, extending from the northeast with finger-like extensions into the southern part of the state near the South Carolina border.7 District 12 stretches approximately 160 miles along the Interstate 85 corridor in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas.8
Five North Carolinians filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against state officials.9 After the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s initial dismissal in Shaw v. Reno, the case proceeded to a six-day trial on remand.10 The District Court unanimously found that the plan’s lines were deliberately drawn to produce one or more districts of a specific racial composition.11 A majority of the District Court upheld the plan as constitutional, while one judge dissented, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.12
Two of the appellants, Ruth Shaw and Melvin Shimm, reside in District 12.13
Whether the North Carolina redistricting plan classifies voters on the basis of race?14
A racially gerrymandered districting scheme, like all laws that classify citizens on the basis of race, is constitutionally suspect.15 Strict scrutiny applies when race is the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.16 In such cases the legislature subordinates traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations.17
Yes. The District Court found after a six-day trial that the plan’s lines were deliberately drawn to produce one or more districts of a specific racial composition.18 The State’s submission for preclearance expressly acknowledged that Chapter 7’s overriding purpose was to create two congressional districts with effective black voting majorities.19 Gerry Cohen, the plan’s principal draftsman, testified that creating two majority-black districts was the principal reason for Districts 1 and 12.20
These facts establish that race was the predominant factor because the legislature subordinated traditional districting principles to the racial objective of achieving majority-black districts.21
The North Carolina redistricting plan classifies voters on the basis of race.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Ginsburg And Justice Breyer, And With Whom Justice Souter Joins Except As To Part Iii
Justice Stevens dissents on the ground that the redistricting plan was the product of a legitimate effort by the State to comply with the Voting Rights Act and to avoid diluting the voting strength of African-American citizens rather than an impermissible racial classification.23 The shape of District 12 is unusual, but bizarre district lines have been a feature of American politics since the early days of the Republic.24 The fact that a district is oddly shaped does not mean that it is unconstitutional.25
The record demonstrates that the General Assembly was motivated by a desire to comply with federal law, not by an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race.26 He would affirm the judgment below.27
Whether appellants have standing to challenge District 12?28
A plaintiff who resides in a district which is the subject of a racial-gerrymander claim has standing to challenge the legislation which created that district.29 A plaintiff from outside that district lacks standing absent specific evidence that he personally has been subjected to a racial classification.30
Yes. Two of the appellants reside in District 12 and thus have standing to challenge that part of Chapter 7 which defines District 12.31 The remaining appellants do not reside in District 1 and have not provided specific evidence that they personally were assigned to their voting districts on the basis of race.32 Therefore only Shaw and Shimm have standing and only with respect to District 12.33
The appellants have standing to challenge District 12.34
Whether the plan serves a compelling state interest in complying with sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act?35
Compliance with the Voting Rights Act on its own can provide a compelling interest only where the challenged district was reasonably necessary under a correct reading and application of those laws.36 A State’s interest in remedying the effects of past or present racial discrimination requires identification of the discrimination with specificity and a strong basis in evidence before embarking on the race-based program.37
No. The initial plan creating one majority-black district was ameliorative and could not violate section 5 unless the new apportionment itself so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution.38 The Justice Department’s objection pursued a maximization policy that is not properly grounded in section 5.39 The District Court found that an interest in ameliorating past discrimination did not actually precipitate the use of race in the redistricting plan.40 The legislators invoking that history lacked sufficient voting power to cause the creation of the second district on that basis alone.41
Reports prepared for litigation were not before the General Assembly when it enacted the plan.42
The plan does not serve a compelling state interest in complying with sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.43
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter dissents and joins Parts I, II, and IV of Justice Stevens’ dissent.44 He believes that the State’s interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act is compelling and that the redistricting plan is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.45 His views on this case are substantially expressed in his dissent to Bush v. Vera, post, p.
952.46 In joining the Stevens dissent he underscores that the plan reflects a legitimate state effort to meet federal voting rights requirements rather than an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.47 He maintains that compliance with the Voting Rights Act supplies a compelling justification and that the district lines satisfy narrow tailoring.48
Whether the plan is narrowly tailored to any asserted compelling interest?49
The means chosen to accomplish the State’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.50 Where avoidance of section 2 liability is assumed to be a compelling interest the racial classification must at a minimum remedy the anticipated violation or achieve compliance.51
No. District 12 could not remedy any potential section 2 violation because no one looking at the district could reasonably suggest that it contains a geographically compact population of any race.52 The vote-dilution injuries suffered by persons in one area are not remedied by creating a safe majority-black district somewhere else in the State.53 The portion of District 12 that lies in Mecklenburg County covers not more than 20 percent of the district, which is insufficient to substantially address any section 2 violation.54 The district therefore is not narrowly tailored to the State’s asserted interest in complying with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.55
The plan is not narrowly tailored to any asserted compelling interest.56
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Stevens And Justice Breyer, And With Whom Justice Souter Joins As To Part Iii
Justice Ginsburg joins Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion.57 She believes the Court’s decision represents an unwarranted extension of Shaw v. Reno.58 The redistricting plan at issue here was a legitimate effort by North Carolina to comply with its obligations under the Voting Rights Act.59
The majority’s insistence on applying strict scrutiny to this plan will make it virtually impossible for States to create majority-minority districts without facing constitutional challenge, and she would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.60