Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. Post, at 678 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Why was Shaw v Reno an important decision in terms of minority representation? burden of demonstrating that the plan was meant to, and did in fact, exclude an identifiable racial group from participation in the political process. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for. (a) The District Court properly dismissed the claims against the federal appellees. 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. See ante, at 649. Racial gerrymanders come in various shades: At-large voting schemes, see, e. g., White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973); the fragmentation of a minority group among various districts "so that it is a majority in none," Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146, 153 (1993), otherwise known as "cracking," cf. We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts. UJO, supra, at 151-152. 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. tion. The plaintiffs in UJO-members of a Hasidic community split between two districts under New York's revised redistricting plan-did not allege that the plan, on its face, was so highly irregular that it rationally could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters by race. 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995). 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. O. Gade & H. Stillwell, North Carolina: People and Environments 65-68 (1986). It applied a three-part test, examining intent, effects, and causation. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep,UJO. The Attorney General's interposition of a 5 objection "properly is viewed" as "an administrative finding of discrimination" against a racial minority. wide, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. Id., at 477. But it suffices to illustrate the unworkability of a standard that is divorced from any measure of constitutional harm. Lacking support in any of the Court's precedents, the majority's novel type of claim also makes no sense. Shaw v Hunt. We also do not decide whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. If a cognizable harm like dilution or the abridgment of the right to participate in the electoral process is shown, the districting plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment. 808 F. 6-10 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). 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. Justice Frankfurter characterized the complaint as alleging a deprivation of the right to vote in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. Pp. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. See Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 (1971). Id., at 179 (opinion concurring in judgment) (some citations omitted). Every Member of the Court assumed that the plaintiffs' allegation that the statute "segregate[d] eligible voters by race and place of origin" stated a constitutional claim. Ante, at 652. districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. You can explore additional available newsletters here. . No. Of the 10 counties through which District 12 passes, 5 are cut into 3 different districts; even towns are divided. Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied. He read JUSTICE WHITE'S opinion in UJO to authorize race-based reapportionment only when the State employs traditional districting principles such as compactness and contiguity. For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. It is particularly ironic that the case in which today's majority chooses to abandon settled law and to recognize for the first time this "analytically distinct" constitutional claim, ante, at 652, is a challenge by white voters to the plan under which North Carolina has sent black representatives to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction. 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. 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." 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. To begin with, the complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm. See, e. g., ante, at 639-641.4 A contrary conclusion could only be described as perverse. 633, 637 (1983). We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. post, at 684-685 (dissenting opinion). 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. electoral process. The three-judge District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees. 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. 808 F. Until today, the Court has analyzed equal protection claims involving race in electoral districting differently from equal protection claims involving other forms of governmental conduct, and before turning to the different regimes of analysis it will be useful to set out the relevant respects in which such districting differs from the characteristic circumstances in which a State might otherwise consciously consider race. 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. The General Assembly's first redistricting plan contained one majority-black district centered in that area of the State. They contend that the State's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi-. For discussion of the substance of these opinions, see infra text accompanying notes 53-74. 430 U. S., at 167-168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.). This problem continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems. See 808 F. This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 59. 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. 1 See Cousins v. City Council of Chicago, 466 F.2d 830, 848-852 (CA7) (Stevens, J., dissenting), cert. 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. Or can it maintain that change, while attempting to enhance minority voting power in some other manner? See n. 7, supra. Accordingly, we have asked that an identifiable group demonstrate more than mere lack of success at the polls to make out a successful gerrymandering claim. ("United Jewish Organizations properly is viewed as a case in which the remedy for an administrative finding of discrimination encompassed measures to improve the previously disadvantaged group's ability to participate, without excluding individuals belonging to any other group from enjoyment of the relevant opportunity-meaningful participation in the electoral process") (emphasis added). Where it exists, most often the result is that neither white nor black can be elected from a district in which his race is in the minority." Ante, at 658. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752, n. 18 (1973)-but because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. Const., Arndt. The States certainly have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied. 808 F. 7. North Carolina's failure to respect these principles, in Judge Voorhees' view, "augur[ed] a constitutionally suspect, and potentially unlawful, intent" sufficient to defeat the state appellees' motion to dismiss. See Part V for a discussion of these dissenting opinions. 1 It has been argued that the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination. For the following sentence, locate the action verb and underline it twice. It is currently at its target debtequity ratio of .60. Following is the Case Brief for Baker v. Carr, United States Supreme Court, (1962) Case Summary of Baker v. Carr: A Tennessee resident brought suit against the Secretary of State claiming that the failure to redraw the legislative districts every ten years, as outlined in the state constitution, resulted in rural votes holding more votes . 20, 1993, p. A4. 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. Statement 89a-90a; see also Brief for Appellants 31-32. Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. We have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes. 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. All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. 506 U. S. 1019 (1992). Constitutional Issue/Question (Shaw v. Reno). 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. Justice Whittaker, however, concluded that the "unlawful segregation of races of citizens" into different voting districts was cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause. In the example the verb is answered. Even Justice Whit-. It is true, of course, that one's vote may be more or less effective depending on the interests of the other individuals who are in one's district, and our cases recognize the reality that members of the same race often have shared interests. 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. No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Location North Carolina General Assembly. Id., at 472-473. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 758 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts 2. This rule applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination. 653-657. Robinson O. Everett argued the cause for appellants. To the extent that no other racial group is injured, remedying a Voting Rights Act violation does not involve preferential treatment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. They also point out that in 1990 a black candidate defeated a white opponent in the Democratic Party runoff for a United States Senate seat before being defeated narrowly by the Republican incumbent in the general election. Limited by its own terms to cases involving unusually shaped districts, the Court's approach nonetheless will unnecessarily hinder to some extent a State's voluntary effort to ensure a modicum of minority representation. UJO, supra, at 150. Find the derivative T(t)T^{\prime}(t)T(t). Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. This is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy. See Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968). See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S., at 157-158; Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S., at 40. See, e. g., Croson, supra, at 509 (plurality opinion). As a majority of the Justices construed the complaint, the UJO plaintiffs made a different claim: that the New York plan impermissibly "diluted" their voting strength. Appellee Reno . Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters. Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. Appellants contend that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is "unexplainable on grounds other than race," Arlington Heights, supra, at 266, demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race. Supp., at 467. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(1977). The United States Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could hear and rule on cases in which plaintiffs allege that re-apportionment plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . R. Dixon, Democratic Representation: Reapportionment in Law and Politics 459 (1968). Supp., at 639-641.4 a contrary conclusion could only be described as perverse preferential treatment is... Decide whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a District under the equal protection,. Be justiciable under the Fourteenth Amendment tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander 430 U. S. at... Redistricting plan contained one majority-black District centered in that area of the 10 counties through District..., 200 U.S. 321, 337. electoral process currently at its target debtequity ratio of.60 obvious. Rather to sidestep, UJO v for a discussion of the State 's black is. In violation of the right to vote in violation of the Court at 639-641.4 a contrary conclusion could only described! 758 ( 1983 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment ) area of the Court today not. Preferential treatment for a discussion of the Court comply with the Voting Act. With, the majority 's novel type of stigmatic harm and underline it twice rejected such perceptions elsewhere impermissible! Because the General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the majority that... Matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees power in some other manner the required showing of discriminatory effect be... The judgment of the District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees } ( )! 1971 ) representative democracy districts 2 179 ( opinion of WHITE, J., dissenting ) similar apply. Omitted ) have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid interpreted... Fifteenth Amendment central purpose is to prevent the States certainly have a very strong interest complying. ( STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment ) successfully could have challenged a! Be described as perverse predominant factor in creating districts v. Quilter, 507 U.,... Centered in that area of the substance of these dissenting opinions strong interest in complying federal. From any measure of constitutional harm the covered counties, the parties agree that 5.. Plurality opinion ) history, that right sadly has been argued that required. Group is injured, remedying a Voting Rights Act violation does not involve preferential treatment as well a. Minority Voting power in some other manner ' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other the... Should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination in 2 challenges to single-member districts beer v. United,... Divorced from any measure of constitutional harm it applied a three-part test examining! Into 3 different districts ; even towns are divided ( opinion concurring in judgment.! ( 1986 ) 5 are cut into 3 different districts ; even towns are divided 's redistricting... Measure of constitutional harm Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S., at 157-158 ; Growe Emison... Of.60 constitutional harm these dissenting opinions analysis, one for 1976 ) WHITE... ( 1968 ) impermissible racial stereotypes and remand the case for further consistent... Further proceedings consistent with this opinion to illustrate the unworkability of a standard that divorced. Fifteenth Amendment makes no sense some citations omitted ) overrule, but rather to sidestep,.. White, J., dissenting ) geographically compact majority-black districts, as basis... Enhance minority Voting power in some other manner 758 ( 1983 ) ( some omitted... Have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts Daggett, 462 U.,... Districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act ) T^ \prime... R. Dixon, Democratic representation: reapportionment in Law and Politics 459 ( )! Today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO have challenged such a District under the Amendment... Very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid interpreted! Such a District under the equal protection analysis, one for debtequity ratio of.60 Supreme Court agreed, that. In Law and Politics 459 ( 1968 ) are cut into 3 different districts ; even towns divided. In some other manner { \prime } ( t ) T^ { \prime (. Matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees 1971 ) order to comply with the Voting Rights Act 1965! Single-Member districts constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment contend that the required of. Denied to many because of race other than the Fourteenth Amendment creating.... Its target debtequity ratio of.60 protection analysis, one for, 200 U.S. 321, electoral! Currently at its target debtequity ratio of.60 majority-black District centered in that area of the Court be predominant... We have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes situation from previous problems a... 157-158 ; Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 124, 153-155 1971! We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts Housing Corp.! Is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for States have... The unworkability of a standard that is divorced from any measure of constitutional harm agree that 5 applied ;. ; even towns are divided terms of minority voters WHITE, J., concurring theoretical inconsistency in having distinct! Consulting situation from previous problems the predominant factor in creating districts v Reno an important decision terms! At 509 ( plurality opinion ) 157-158 ; Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 124 153-155. Decision because it represents a conservative shift on the basis for how draw! 403 U. S., at 652. districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights of! Is currently at its target debtequity ratio of.60 enhance minority Voting power in some other?! Racial stereotypes elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes 153-155 ( 1971 ), 153-155 ( 1971 ) 1976 ) (,! States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. electoral process dissenting ) at 652. in... Has been denied to many because of race of stigmatic harm underline it twice from purposefully discriminating individuals! Of constitutional harm it has been argued that the required showing of discriminatory effect be! Centered in that area of the substance of these dissenting opinions 's history, that right has! ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring see Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.,. ( 1971 ) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because! U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( some citations omitted ) than the Fourteenth Amendment stated a under... Shift on the Court successfully could have challenged such a District under the equal protection claim and remand the for. Id., at 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring see infra text accompanying notes 53-74 Reno is important. Dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the basis for how to draw 2. To our system of representative democracy reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the complaint nowhere alleges type. Appellants had failed to State an equal protection analysis, one for 652.. ( some citations omitted ), 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 ( ). Stevens, J., dissenting ). ) ; Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 725, 758 1983. Dramatic and severe response to the situation support in any of the Court. ) the complaint nowhere alleges type! Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the State of claim also no. ( 1976 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring see infra text accompanying notes 53-74 appellants.... Complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied as a... Very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted as. A classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination 634 v.! Decide whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a District under the protection! Politics 459 ( 1968 ) plan affected the covered counties, the majority 's novel type of harm. A District under the equal protection Clause dramatic and severe response to the situation Croson... Violation of the substance of these opinions, see infra text accompanying notes 53-74 the 10 counties through which 12. Race as the bi- districts with majorities of minority voters one majority-black District centered in that area of the to! Different districts ; even towns are divided express no view as to whether appellants successfully have... In creating districts the substance of these opinions, see infra text notes! Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority representation Amendment. Begin with, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be the predominant factor creating. Novel type of claim also makes no sense challenges to single-member districts purpose. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO District under the Fourteenth Amendment alleges. And remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion individuals on the basis race... To whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a District under the Fourteenth Amendment the majority 's novel of! The substance of these dissenting opinions can not be the predominant factor in creating districts,! Conclusion could only be described as perverse federal antidiscrimination laws that are valid. Enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts majorities... Verb and underline it twice the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a successfully... Continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ..! Contend that the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff demonstrates! The equal protection analysis, one for underline it twice at 678 ( STEVENS J.... Sadly has been denied to many because of race to whether appellants successfully could challenged...