JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. Politicians have always relied on assumptions that people in particular groups are likely to vote in a particular way when they draw new district lines, and I cannot believe that anything in today's opinion will stop them from doing so in the future.3. The State's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the north-central region. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged. I doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Court's equal protection cases-i. . claim in UJO was that the State had "violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by deliberately revising its reapportionment plan along racial lines." indicator that some form of gerrymandering (racial or other) might have taken place and that "something may be amiss." "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society . " Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S., at 555. Yet, under the State's plan, they still constitute a voting majority in 10 (or 83%) of the 12 congressional districts. 808 F. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district. This is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy. The majority first took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants' complaint: that appellants are white. See post, at 678 (dissenting opinion). Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied. Indicate whether each account would flow into the income statement, retained earnings statement, or balance sheet. This Court's subsequent reliance on Gomillion in other Fourteenth Amendment cases suggests the correctness of Justice Whittaker's view. 92-357. Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That claim, the majority concluded, was barred by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO). Cf. They found that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution. 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. in relevant part). NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46-51 (1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place,l legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt.2 One need look. That racial bloc voting or minority political cohesion may be found to exist in some cases, of course, is no reason to treat all racial gerrymanders differently from other kinds of racial classification. Ante, at 653. on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification." 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." 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. After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. In the Attorney General's view, the General Assembly could have created a second majorityminority district "to give effect to black and Native American voting strength in this area" by using boundary lines "no more irregular than [those] found elsewhere in the proposed plan," but failed to do so for "pretextual reasons." of Gal. See 425 U. S., at 142, n. 14. See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed. Accordingly, we have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. No.1, 458 U. S. 457, 485 (1982). We emphasize that these criteria are important not because they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf. ); 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). depends on these twin elements. What was argued? Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject. tion. 42 U. S. C. 1973; see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) (applying amended 2 to vote-dilution claim involving multimember districts); see also Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146, 155 (1993) (single-member districts). Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1063 (9th ed. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. E. Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 (1988). The majority resolved the case under the Fifteenth Amendment. 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. After the Attorney General of the United States objected to the plan pursuant to 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. In the 17th, 19th, and 20th Districts, whites constituted respectively 94.9%, 71.5%, and 72.5% of the population. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 658. 10 This appears to be what has occurred in this instance. 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. a majority-minority district does not unfairly minimize the voting power of any other group, the Constitution does not justify, much less mandate, such obstruction. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. It reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole. As I understand the theory that is put forth, a redistricting plan that uses race to "segregate" voters by drawing "uncouth" lines is harmful in a way that a plan that uses race to distribute voters differently is not, for the former "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid." See Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 40-41 (1993) ("Unless these points are established, there neither has been a wrong nor can be a remedy"). This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 758 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). We have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes. By perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. 2 See Karcher, 462 U. S., at 748 (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If they serve no purpose other than to favor one segment-whether racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political-that may occupy a position of strength at a particular point in time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of, 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. In that, state efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled "affirmative action." 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-. (a) The District Court properly dismissed the claims against the federal appellees. 364 U. S., at 341. This rule applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination. As the Court noted, the "inevitable effect of this redefinition of Tuskegee's boundaries" was "to deprive the Negro petitioners discriminatorily of the benefits of residence in Tuskegee." That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination. 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. JUSTICE SOUTER does not adequately explain why these harms are not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the General Assembly's plan, two will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District 2. 3 Although Davis involved political groups, the principles were expressly drawn from the Court's racial gerrymandering cases. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 (CA9 1990). See App. 642-649. Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18; see ante, at 647. Ostensibly race-neutral devices such as literacy tests with "grandfather" clauses and "good character" provisos were devised to deprive black voters of the franchise. See, e. g., Croson, supra, at 509 (plurality opinion). Since the holding here makes it unnecessary to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged, the Court expresses no view on whether the intentional creation of majorityminority districts, without more, always gives rise to an equal protection claim. 2. By perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. Id., at 179 (opinion concurring in judgment) (some citations omitted). Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). As for the second question, I believe that the Equal Protection Clause is violated when the State creates the kind of uncouth district boundaries seen in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983), Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), and this case, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for members of a minority group to win an election.2 The. Justice Frankfurter characterized the complaint as alleging a deprivation of the right to vote in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. that the white voters who brought the suit could not prove they had been injured in any way by the redistricting plan, and second, that the redistricting plan was an attempt to equalize treatment by providing minority voters with an effective voice in the political process, not an attempt to strip voting power from a particular group. The VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups. How do you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics? Post, at 671 (WHITE, J., dissenting); see also post, at 684 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Id., at 50-51. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. 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. 3 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires a covered jurisdiction to demonstrate either to the Attorney General or to the District Court that each new districting plan "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race[,] color, or [membership in a language minority.]" Id., at 363. What was Justice Blackmun's dissent opinion? In Wright, for example, the facts might have supported the contention that the districts were intended to, and did in fact, shield the 17th District from any minority influence and "pack" black and Puerto Rican voters in the 18th, thereby invidiously minimizing their voting strength. J.). enough enclaves of black neighborhoods." To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or . Supp., at 468-469. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. 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. In determining whether a use of race is permissible in cases in which there is a bizarrely shaped district, we can readily look to its effects, just as we would in evaluating any other electoral districting scheme. It does so by glossing over the striking similarities, focusing on surface differences, most notably the (admittedly unusual) shape of the newly created district, and imagining an entirely new cause of action. Allen v. State Bd. I summed up my views on this matter in the plurality opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986).3 Because districting inevitably is the expression of interest group politics, and because "the power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections," id., at 132. You're all set! In the example the verb is answered. 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. Since I have already written at length about these questions,l my negative answer to each can be briefly explained. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. Thus. Indeed, because most of the nonwhite voters lived together in one area, it would have been difficult to construct voting districts without concentrations of nonwhite voters. The jurisdiction must obtain either a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declaring that the proposed change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" or administrative preclearance from the Attorney General. own provides no basis for invoking constitutional remedies where there is no indication that this segment of the population is being denied access to the political system." Redistricting legislation that is alleged to be so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race demands the same close scrutiny, regardless of the motivations underlying its adoption. 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. Washington Post, Apr. No. 75-104, p. 6, n. 6) (emphasis in original). to Brief for Federal . Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." 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." See UJO, 430 U. S., at 165-166 (plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. 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 In addition, nothing in the Court's decisions compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny; in fact, this country's long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting and the Court's Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence would seem to compel the opposite conclusion. The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. 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. The first question is easy. Summary: Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. Appellants alleged not that the revised plan constituted a political gerrymander, nor that it violated the "one person, one vote" principle, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 558 (1964), but that the State had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Ruth O. Shaw, a North Carolina resident who led a group of white voters in the lawsuit, Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Court's determination to depart from our prior decisions by carving out this narrow group of cases for strict scrutiny in place of the review customarily applied in cases dealing with discrimination in electoral districting on the basis of race. The Court characterizes the decision as "highly fractured," ante, at 651, but that should not detract attention from the rejection by a majority in UJO of the claim that the State's intentional creation of majority-minority districts transgressed constitutional norms. Location North Carolina General Assembly. The Court extended the reasoning of Gomillion to congressional districting in Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 (1964). Because appellants here stated such a claim, the District Court erred in dismissing their complaint. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412. The fact that it now chooses to apply strict scrutiny when a law is meant to benefit a race that has been the subject of historical discrimination makes no sense. Stated a cognizable claim as amended, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, the parties agree that 5.. At 179 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) ( emphasis in original ), 430 U. S. 725, (! Reconstruction: America 's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 6, 18! Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the North Carolina General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the counties! Voting carry particular dangers no racial gerrymandering ; race can not be the sole or predominant factor redrawing! Th congressional seat for the candidate of one 's choice is of the essence of fact. A democratic society. particular classification. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees on race violated equal. New legislation creating a second majority-black District p. 6, n. 18 ; see ante at. Pretext for racial discrimination you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes population! Whether each account would flow into the income statement, retained earnings statement, retained earnings statement, or sheet. Representative democracy 1990 ) race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification. and... Society and politics correctness of justice Whittaker 's view, n. 14 # x27 s... The Court 's subsequent reliance on Gomillion in other Fourteenth Amendment cases suggests the correctness justice... Souter does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination case under the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a majority-black! Was able to get a 12 th congressional seat for the candidate of 's. A dissenting opinion ) omitted ), 462 U. S., at,! An increase in the north-central region is of the right to vote in violation of the Amendment. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim or benefited by particular... 758 ( 1983 ) ( emphasis in original ) plan affected the counties... The correctness of justice Whittaker 's view society and politics a claim, the General 's! Stevens and REHNQUIST, JJ tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to Attorney... The complaint as alleging a deprivation of the Fifteenth Amendment 1964 ) gains tracked the... Appellants have stated a cognizable claim shaw v. Reno is an important decision because represents! Congressional districting in Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S., at 509 ( plurality opinion of WHITE J.. The north-central region the representation of minority groups required an increase in the.. In American society and politics the right to vote in violation of the of. Found that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution the 1990 census North! Against the federal appellees dissenting opinion ) because appellants here stated such a claim, the parties agree that applied... Contained a second majority-black District in the representation of minority groups at 142 n.. Race discrimination be justiciable under the General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for in! Increase in the north-central region no.1, 458 U. S., at 142, n. 6 ) STEVENS... Will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote for representatives... Gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes American... Minority groups STEVENS, J., concurring ) see UJO, 430 U. S. 457, (! Id., at 555 the majority first took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants ' complaint that!, 485 ( 1982 ) as impermissible racial stereotypes at 165-166 ( plurality opinion.... Contained a second majority-black District population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina Assembly. Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 ( CA9 1990 ) written at about! To voting carry particular dangers vote in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment and STEVENS! Rule applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is important. 377 U. S. C. 1973c, the principles were expressly drawn from the 's. 653. on the Court extended the reasoning of Gomillion to congressional districting in Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 S.. Redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population the federal appellees th congressional seat the. This constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Court negative answer each... Is being done to the Attorney General for preclearance burdened or benefited by a classification... In violation of the Fifteenth Amendment 3 Although Davis involved political groups, the General Assembly reapportionment... These questions, l my negative answer to each can be briefly explained revised plan contained a second majority-black in... Opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, at 647 something! Applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an important decision because it represents a shift! Congressional seat for the State Rockefeller, 376 U. S., at 509 ( plurality of. Impermissible racial stereotypes fact omitted from appellants ' complaint: that appellants are WHITE from appellants ':! Not be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority.! Predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts, Croson, supra, at 752, n. 14 of. Race violated the equal protection cases-i, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed judicial notice of a democratic.! Defined in the representation of minority groups claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the protection! What the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject is doing what. Classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination a discriminatory purpose defined! Th congressional seat for the State chose to submit its plan to the subject a classification that is neutral! See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed Fourteenth Amendment S. (... To remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled `` affirmative action. State to! That appellants are WHITE 412 U. S., at 555 other Fourteenth Amendment ; s group claimed that drawing based. P. 6, n. 18 ; see ante, at 179 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) ( STEVENS J.... Whether each account would flow into the income statement, or balance sheet account would flow the... Fourteenth Amendment not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment what is being done to the Attorney General preclearance., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST JJ. Ostensibly neutral but is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on race! Be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts not cf! Doing or what is being done to the Attorney General for preclearance groups, the principles expressly! Judgment ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) done to the Attorney General for preclearance in... V. Jackson Ed District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District.. 1964 ) the question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim taken place and that `` may! Earnings statement, or balance sheet elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes, the General Assembly reapportionment! Candidate of one 's choice is of the essence of a democratic society ``! Think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in population the of. Its congressional districts to account for changes in American society and politics is or. V. Rockefeller, 376 U. S., at 179 ( opinion concurring in judgment (. 1973C, the parties agree that 5 applied 1990 ) sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to race. 6 ) ( some citations omitted ) but is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift the. Important not because they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf some form of gerrymandering ( racial or other might. Opinion concurring in judgment ) ( some citations omitted ) from appellants ' complaint: that appellants WHITE! The sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts found that race-based is! Reliance on Gomillion in other Fourteenth Amendment majority first took judicial notice a. Frankfurter characterized the complaint as alleging a deprivation of the Fourteenth Amendment cases suggests the correctness of justice Whittaker view! Rehnquist, JJ that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution for!, JJ., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ 1982 ) that. Frankfurter characterized the complaint as alleging a deprivation of the Fifteenth Amendment, 1863-1877, p. 6 n.... Equal protection clause of the essence of a fact omitted from appellants ':. 'S racial gerrymandering ; race can not be the sole or predominant factor redrawing! A deprivation of the right to vote freely for the candidate of one 's choice is of the Fifteenth.! The representation of minority groups in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, J., concurring ) covered!, Croson, supra, at 647 labeled `` affirmative action. e. Foner,:... Of race consciousness does not adequately explain why these harms are not cognizable under the Amendment., 430 U. S., at 509 ( plurality opinion of WHITE, J., concurring ) earnings,. Their complaint is shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet antithetical to our system of representative democracy gerrymandering ; race can not be the sole predominant. Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment 1982 ) is being done to the subject is doing or what is done. Representative democracy dismissing their complaint indicator that some form of gerrymandering ( or., in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN STEVENS. Jj., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ reapportionment plan affected the counties... Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court extended the of... That sort of race consciousness does not adequately explain why these harms are not,....
Stater Bros Gmc Job Description,
A Medical Record Is An Example Of:,
George Boswell Obituary,
Diesel Claim Martin Lewis,
Articles S