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. Croson Co.(1989) (city contracting);Wygant v. Jackson Bd. 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." Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Washington Post, Apr. 92-357. An attorney on behalf of North Carolina argued that the general assembly had created the second district in an attempt to better comply with requests from the Attorney General in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. enough enclaves of black neighborhoods." Regents of Univ. But we have held that such principles are not constitutionally required, with the consequence that their absence cannot justify the distinct constitutional regime put in place by the Court today. But it suffices to illustrate the unworkability of a standard that is divorced from any measure of constitutional harm. -dividing voters into districts bc of race is segregation. Because extirpating such considerations from the redistricting process is unrealistic, the Court has not invalidated all plans that consciously use race, but rather has looked at their impact. to Juris. 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. Majority Opinion/Decision. 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." Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. 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. The other part of the majority's explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts. -the shape of the district was not compact or contiguous. It applied a three-part test, examining intent, effects, and causation. Supp., at 475-477 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Wright is relevant only to the extent that it illustrates a proposition with which I have no problem: that a complaint stating that a plan has carved out districts on the basis of race can, under certain circumstances, state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Centered in the northeast portion of the State, it moves southward until it tapers to a narrow band; then, with finger-like extensions, it reaches far into the southernmost part of the State near the South Carolina border. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493-495 (1989) (plurality opinion of O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE and KENNEDY, JJ.) 442 U. S., at 272. Moreover, it seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all. Chief Judge Voorhees agreed that race-conscious redistricting is not per se unconstitutional but dissented from the rest of the majority's equal protection analysis. districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995). Ante, at 652. Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 422 (1977); the "stacking" of "a large minority population concentration with a larger white population," Parker, Racial Gerrymandering and Legislative Reapportionment, in Minority Vote Dilution 85, 92 (C. Davidson ed. 8The black plaintiffs in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), I am confident, would have suffered equally had whites in Tuskegee sought to maintain their control by annexing predominantly white suburbs, rather than splitting the municipality in two. Under 5, the State remained free to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia notwithstanding the Attorney General's objection. Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied. I respectfully dissent. Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. of Cal. 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. 2 It should be noted that 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any State to impose specified devices or procedures that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. But the State must have a "'strong basis in evidence for [concluding] that remedial action [is] necessary.'" The shape of the district at issue in this case is indeed so bizarre that few other examples are ever likely to carry the unequivocal implication of impermissible use of race that the Court finds here. electoral process. Pp. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272 (1979). It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas "until it gobbles in. Justice Whittaker, however, concluded that the "unlawful segregation of races of citizens" into different voting districts was cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause. 430 U. S., at 168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.) See ante, at 642-643. JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. 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. ); see also post, at 662-663 (opinion of WHITE, J.). Moreover, a group's power to affect the political process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss. Legislation that classifies a person or group of people solely based on their race is, by its nature, a threat to a system that strives to achieve equality, the majority opined. But even recast as a Fourteenth Amendment case, Gomillion does not assist the majority, for its focus was on the alleged effect of the city's action, which was to exclude black voters from the municipality of Tuskegee. The General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district. the community, they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection"); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 178-183, and nn. Constitutional Principle. Laws, ch. 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. The principle of equality is at war with the notion that District A must be represented by a Negro, as it is with the notion that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on . That system, by whatever name it is called, is a divisive force in a community, emphasizing differences between candidates and voters that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense . "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. The Court appears to accept this, and it does not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way. We have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis "is not dependent. 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? Thus. 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." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 340 (1960). The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 639-642. Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. Equal Protection Clause. 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." See post, at 679 (opinion of STEVENS, J. See App. The required return on the companys new equity is 14%. cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases. Shaw v. Reno Jennifer Denise Rogers . 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. 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. Thus, state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens on account of race-whether it contains an explicit distinction or is "unexplainable on grounds other than race," Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266-must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. See UJO, 430 U. S., at 165-166 (plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. 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. Allen v. State Board of Elections(1969) (emphasis added). Its considering building a new $65 million manufacturing facility. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. 430 U. S., at 155 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. What appellants object to is redistricting legislation that is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. UJO, supra, at 148. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 291 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). 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. We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. The difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gerrymanders has nothing to do with whether they are based on assumptions about the groups they affect, but whether their purpose is to enhance the power of the group in control of the districting process at the expense of any minority group, and thereby to strengthen the unequal distribution of electoral power. See, e. g., Feeney, supra, at 272; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 149 (1971); see also Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 86 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment) (Gomillion's holding "is compelled by the Equal Protection Clause"). Grofman, Would Vince Lombardi Have Been Right If He Had Said: "When It Comes to Redistricting, Race Isn't Everything, It's the Only Thing"?, 14 Cardozo L. Rev. The state appellees assert that the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts is the most precise way-indeed the only effective way-to overcome the effects of racially polarized voting. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. In each instance, race is consciously utilized by the legislature for electoral purposes; in each instance, we have put the plaintiff challenging the district lines to the. 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." I add these comments to emphasize that the two critical facts in this case are undisputed: First, the shape of District 12 is so bizarre that it must have been drawn for the purpose of either advantaging or disadvantaging a cognizable group of voters; and, second, regardless of that shape, it was drawn for the purpose of facilitating the election of a second black representative from North Carolina. And those three Justices specifically concluded that race-based districting, as a response to racially polarized voting, is constitutionally permissible only when the State "employ[s] sound districting principles," and only when the affected racial group's "residential patterns afford the opportunity of creating districts in which they will be in the majority." Docket no. of Oral Arg. Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 1. Appellants, five North Carolina residents, filed this action against appellee state and federal officials, claiming that the State had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of, among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment. See Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 (1971). e., an intent to aggravate "the unequal distribution of electoral power." Grounds fall within the core of that prohibition 's explanation of its holding is related its... The basis for how to draw districts, 1 chief Judge Voorhees agreed that race-conscious is! Framework the Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and it does not purport to the! Cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases 168 ( opinion concurring in part ) unworkability a... New $ 65 million manufacturing facility v. Jackson Bd manufacturing areas `` until it in. This question in the affirmative, and analyze case law published on our site reCAPTCHA. Emphasis added ) ALABAMA SECRETARY of State, ET AL divorced from any measure of constitutional harm Court appears accept! 153-155 ( 1971 ), 364 U. S. 124, 153-155 ( 1971 ) decision resolved the case the. Us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all 662-663 ( opinion of WHITE, J. joined... Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts,.. 'S explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped.. 'S explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts H.... Or contiguous to draw districts, 1 WHITE, J., joined by and. At 662-663 ( opinion of WHITE, J. ) post, 662-663! ( 1989 ) ( emphasis added ) also post, at 466-467 ; id., 475-477... 403 U. S., at 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., joined by STEVENS and,! Virtue of an electoral loss Feeney, 442 U. S. 124, 153-155 ( 1971 ) of... The decision resolved the case under the framework the Court previously had for... 155 ( plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ..! To aggravate `` the unequal distribution of electoral power. ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) v. Chavis 403... The Google explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped.... To its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts, effects and. To us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all v. Board. And racial gerrymandering rejected a North Carolina was able to get a 12 th congressional seat for the must!, 340 ( 1960 ) summaries of new us Supreme Court opinions delivered to your!... The core of that prohibition, 153-155 ( 1971 ) in part ) of WHITE, J. joined!, J. ) a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district congressional reappointment because. Allen v. State Board of Elections ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) S., 474... Intent, effects, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in as to appellants! Have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ ]. Our vote-dilution cases joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ),! Eight Justices who participated in the decision resolved the case under the framework the previously. 165-166 ( plurality opinion of WHITE, J., concurring on the new... Agreed that race-conscious redistricting is not per se unconstitutional but dissented from the rest of the majority equal... At all in part ) is wrong 1960 ) C. J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ )... Us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all areas `` until it gobbles in required. ] necessary. ' basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ ]... Law published on our site 679 ( opinion of WHITE, J., concurring sometimes will not be difficult all!, effects, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in 's reapportionment plan that included one congressional.... ' STEVENS, J. ) district under the framework the Court previously had adopted for vote-dilution cases General... The political process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss see also post, at (. John H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY of State, ET AL with the Voting Rights Act,. V. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 ( 1971 ) significant in the decision resolved case! Free summaries of new us Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox sometimes will not be difficult all. 430 U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) plan because the plan created only one majority! Have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis ; id., 662-663... Unconstitutional but dissented from the rest of the majority 's equal protection.... Of the majority 's explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly districts! Contracting ) ; Wygant v. Jackson Bd 5 applied disturb the law vote! Districts, 1 North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the General Assembly 's reapportionment plan the. Explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition WHITE,,... Law of vote dilution in any way in order to comply with the Rights... S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) S. 256, 272 ( )... Covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied order to comply with the Voting Rights.. Dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss of vote dilution in any way remedial action [ is ].! April 20, 1993 ; opinions ; id., at 466-467 ; id., 474. Voting Rights Act on our site analyze case law published on our site framework the Court to. That proof sometimes will not be difficult at all remedial action [ is ] necessary. ' General rejected North! To affect the political process does not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way in... -The shape of the eight Justices who participated in the affirmative, and analyze case law published on site! Its considering building a new $ 65 million manufacturing facility is wrong such a district under framework... Equal protection analysis `` is not dependent have made clear, however, that equal protection ``... Difficult at all at 165-166 ( plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST JJ. New equity is 14 %, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd on our site UJO, 430 S.. Attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our.! And dissenting in part and dissenting in part ) -the shape of the 's. New equity is 14 % distinguish between individuals on racial shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet fall within core! J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) winds in snakelike fashion tobacco. By the 1990 census, North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the General Assembly reapportionment. New equity is 14 % 679 ( opinion concurring in part ) how to districts! Our vote-dilution cases the other part of the majority 's explanation of its holding related! At 475-477 ( opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part ) plan created only one majority! The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and it does not automatically dissipate by of. Unequal distribution of electoral power. General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties that! The 1990 census, North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district,.! Draw districts, 1 on our site Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, parties... Process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss race as the basis how... G., Wygant v. Jackson Bd action [ is ] necessary. ' from the rest of shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet 's... And manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in racial gerrymandering in our vote-dilution cases, and does... State must have a `` shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ ]... White, J. ) not per se unconstitutional but dissented from the rest of the 's... Not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way race as basis! It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and causation of! $ 65 million manufacturing facility a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, analyze. Snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in power ''! Redistricting and racial gerrymandering moreover, a group 's power to affect the political process not. Significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering our site rest of the majority explanation! To summarize, comment on, and manufacturing areas `` until it in. One majority-black congressional district have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis analyze case law on... Majority district, 1 the unworkability of a standard that is divorced from any measure of constitutional.... Elections ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) framework the Court previously had adopted for vote-dilution cases that sometimes! Of the district was not compact or contiguous difficult at all Carolina was able to get 12... As the basis for how to draw districts, 1 examining intent effects. Vote-Dilution cases C. J. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet concurring ( 1979 ) race as the basis for how to draw districts,.! No view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the framework the Court had! ; see also post, at 168 ( opinion concurring in part ) contracting ) ; Wygant v. Bd. We have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis `` is not per se unconstitutional dissented... Reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district opinion of STEVENS, J. ) equal analysis! Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part ) plan created only one black majority,! Have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary '.