As we have explained, however, reapportionment legislation that cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to classify and separate voters by race injures voters in other ways. Cf. Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 15, 1. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. In Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915), the Court invalidated under the Fifteenth Amendment a statute that imposed a literacy requirement on voters but contained a "grandfather clause" applicable to individuals and their lineal descendants entitled to vote "on [or prior to] January 1, 1866." In my view there is no justification for the. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. See, e. g., Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474, 484, n. 2 (1990) ("[A] prosecutor's assumption that a black juror may be presumed to be partial simply because he is black violates the Equal Protection. It is also unnecessary to decide at this stage of the litigation whether the plan advances a state interest distinct from the Act: eradicating the effects of past racial discrimination. (b) Classifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality, because they threaten to stigmatize persons by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. The central explanation has to do with the nature of the redistricting process. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 (CA9 1990). 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. can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," UJO, 430 U. S., at 168, such as compactness and contiguity. for a remand at all, even accepting the majority's basic approach to this case. The Court applied the same reasoning to the "uncouth twenty-eight-sided" municipal boundary line at issue in Gomillion. In other words, the purposeful creation of a majority-minority district could have discriminatory effect if it is achieved by means of "packing"-i. e., overconcentration of minority voters. 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. Draper reviewed the receivables list from the January transactions. b. These lawmakers are quite aware that the districts they create will have a white or a black majority; and with each new district comes the unavoidable choice as to the racial composition of the district." As UJO held, a State is entitled to take such action. Constitutional Principle. Although the State argues that it had a strong basis for concluding that remedial action was warranted, only three Justices in UJO were prepared to say that States have a significant interest in minimizing the consequences of racial bloc voting apart from the Act's requirements and without regard for sound districting principles. Plainly, this variety is not implicated by appellants' allegations and need not detain us further. As explained below, that position cannot be squared with the one taken by the majority in this case. 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. 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. Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution's, NORTH CAROLINA CONGRESSIONAL PLAN Chapter 7 of the 1991 Session Laws (1991 Extra Session). Nor, because of the distinctions between the two categories, is there any risk that Fourteenth Amendment districting law as such will be taken to imply anything for purposes of general Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny about "benign" racial discrimination, or about group entitlement as distinct from individual protection, or about the appropriateness of strict or other heightened scrutiny.7. 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. 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. 430 U. S., at 155 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). 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. These principles apply not only to legislation that contains explicit racial distinctions, but also to those "rare" statutes that, although race neutral, are, on their face, "unexplainable on grounds other than race." or What? There is a characteristic coincidence of disadvantageous effect and illegitimate purpose associated with the State's use of race in those situations in which it has immediately trig-. For these reasons, we conclude that a plaintiff challenging a reapportionment statute under the Equal Protection Clause may state a claim by alleging that the legislation, though race-neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The facts of this case mirror those presented inUnited Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey(1977) (UJO), where the Court rejected a claim that creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution, either as aper sematter or in light of the circumstances leading to the creation of such a district. 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. It spite of such criticisms, the redistricting accomplished its goal. This small sample only begins to scratch the surface of the problems raised by the majority's test. Further, it goes beyond the province of the Court to decide this case. 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. Give examples of input devices for computer systems. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. You can explore additional available newsletters here. (referring variously to "strict scrutiny," "the standard of review employed in Wygant," and "heightened scrutiny"); id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) ("strict scrutiny"); id., at 535 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (classifications" 'must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives'" (quoting Regents of Univ. See Appendix, infra. Supp., at 472-473. Complaint' 29, App. 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. As we have said, however, the very reason that the Equal Protection Clause demands strict scrutiny of all racial classifications is because without it, a court cannot determine whether or not the discrimination truly is "benign." Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Roe v. Wade (1973) Shaw v. Reno (1993) United States v. Lopez (1995) McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) . Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation. We also do not decide whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule Civ. " In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained except on the basis of race can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause, and in Miller v. Johnson (1995) it held that the equal protection clause Read More opinion of O'Connor In Sandra Day O'Connor To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or . 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. 808 F. See ante, at 661-663, 669-670.6. Because appellants here stated such a claim, the District Court erred in dismissing their complaint. of Cal. Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. In that, state efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled "affirmative action." 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"). This Court's subsequent reliance on Gomillion in other Fourteenth Amendment cases suggests the correctness of Justice Whittaker's view. cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases. cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment (Shaw v. Reno), 1. I doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Court's equal protection cases-i. 642-649. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Regents of Univ. Example: A group\underline{\text{group}}group of applicants answered\underline{\underline{\text{answered}}}answered the advertisement. At least. But "[a] number of states refused to take no for an answer and continued to circumvent the fifteenth amendment's prohibition through the use of both subtle and blunt instruments, perpetuating ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination." The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. The plan amounts to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race 3.District 12 is not compact or contiguous which are criteria for district maps 4. Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. a. 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.]" 5 See Richmond v. J. Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Case Summary of Shaw v. Reno: The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney General's objection that it had only one majority-black congressional district, created a second majority-black district. The States certainly have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the federal appellees. The voting age population of North Carolina is approximately 78% white, 20% black, and 1% Native American; the remaining 1% is predominantly Asian. T. HOMAS. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. Appellants contended that the General Assembly's revised reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. See supra, at 647-649. Appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, consti-. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO. Northbound and southbound drivers on 1-85 sometimes find themselves in separate districts in one county, only to "trade" districts when they enter the next county. Despite their invocation of the ideal of a "color-blind" Constitution, seePlessy v. Ferguson(1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting), appellants appear to concede that race-conscious redistricting is not always unconstitutional. That concession is wise: This Court never has held that race-conscious state decisionmaking is impermissible inallcircumstances. See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed. a law designed to help end formal and informal barriers to African-American suffrage, Court case that ruled that district lines may not dilute minority representation, but neither may they be drawn with race as the predominant consideration, 5 white voters, it was motivated by race and violated 14th amendment, Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, U.S. cannot prevent a person from voting because of race, color, or creed, racial gerrymandering-ordinance declared unconstitutional, -constitution prohibits using race as the main reason for how to draw districts, -using race in redistricting is as important of it being continuous, Criminal Justice Unit 1 Exam--STUDY GUIDE, Christina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole, Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition, George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry, Chapter 1: The Role of a Diversity Practition. All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. See ante, at 642, 649, 652, 657-658. 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. Majority Opinion/Decision. The purposes of favoring minority voters and complying with the Voting Rights Act are not discriminatory in the constitutional sense, the court reasoned, and majority-minority districts have an impermissibly discriminatory effect only when they unfairly dilute or cancel out white voting strength. The State's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the north-central region. As was the case in New York, a number of North Carolina's political subdivisions have interfered with black citizens' meaningful exercise of the franchise and are therefore subject to 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Fast Facts: Baker v. Carr But it did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright. Media. Its considering building a new $65 million manufacturing facility. 808 F. Under this approach, in the absence of an allegation of such cognizable harm, there is no need for further scrutiny because a gerrymandering claim cannot be proven without the element of harm. See App. 392, 397 (WDNC 1992). The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. In 1993, about 20% of the state population identified as Black. The black population is relatively dispersed; blacks constitute a majority of the general population in only 5 of the State's 100 counties. It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas "until it gobbles in. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. Management has a target ratio of accounts payable to long-term debt of .15. They were the first blacks to represent North Carolina, a state with a 20 percent black population, since 1901. 1983). In Gomillion, in short, the group that formed the majority at the state level purportedly set out to manipulate city boundaries in order to remove members of the minority, thereby denying them valuable municipal services. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment); see also UJO, 430 U. S., at 172 (Brennan, J., concurring in part) ("[A] purportedly preferential race assignment may in fact disguise a policy that perpetuates disadvantageous treatment of the plan's supposed beneficiaries"). Since that system is at war with. 5-4 decision for Shaw majority opinion by Sandra Day O'Connor. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. The majority read UJO to stand for the proposition that a redistricting scheme violates white voters' rights only if it is "adopted with the purpose and effect of discriminating against white voters on account of their race." Wygant, supra, at 295 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. In the 17th, 19th, and 20th Districts, whites constituted respectively 94.9%, 71.5%, and 72.5% of the population. The facts of this case mirror those presented in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO), where the Court rejected a claim that creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution, either as a per se matter or in light of the circumstances leading to the creation of such a district. Final Vote: 5-4. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. Pleading such an element, the Court holds, suffices without a further allegation of harm, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267 (1986) (teacher layoffs), electoral districting calls for decisions that nearly always require some consideration of race for legitimate reasons where there is a racially mixed population. Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 410 (1991) ("It is axiomatic that racial classifications do not become legitimate on the assumption that all persons suffer them in equal degree"). understood as anything other than an effort to "segregat[e] voters" on the basis of race. Shaw. 6 In this regard, I agree with JUSTICE WHITE'S assessment of the difficulty the white plaintiffs would have here in showing that their opportunity to participate equally in North Carolina's electoral process has been unconstitutionally diminished. But the State must have a "'strong basis in evidence for [concluding] that remedial action [is] necessary.'" JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. of Ed. See 364 U. S., at 341, 346. Moreover, it seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all. 808 F. 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. Unlike other contexts in which we have addressed the State's conscious use of race, see, e. g., Richmond v. J. -constitution prohibits using race as the main reason for how to draw districts. This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. 14, 27-29. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. Even Justice Whit-. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Attorney General's interposition of a 5 objection "properly is viewed" as "an administrative finding of discrimination" against a racial minority. See n. 7, supra. 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." See, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. See Brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15. 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Const., Amdt. to Brief for Federal Appellees lOa-lla. North Carolina's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black voters. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. In the 1992 elections voters in both districts selected black representatives. Nor if dilution is proven is there any need for further constitutional scrutiny; there has never been a suggestion that such use of race could be justified under any type of scrutiny, since the dilution of the right to vote can not be said to serve any legitimate governmental purpose. 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. The majority-minority district that is at the center of the controversy is, according to the State, 54.71% Mrican-American. It is evident to me, however, that what North Carolina did was precisely tailored to meet the objection of the Attorney General to its prior plan. 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. Alabama's exercise in geometry was but one example of the racial discrimination in voting that persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. Finally, like New York, North Carolina reacted by modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority districts. Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. 430 U. S., at 165. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently believes that racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group's voting strength. u. S. 735, 753 (1973); see also Mobile v. Bolden, supra, at 86-87 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). But numerous North Carolinians did. 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. Earlier this Term, we unanimously reaffirmed that racial bloc voting and minority-group political cohesion never can be assumed, but specifically must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of 2. As defined in the north-central region before us is whether appellants ' complaint stated a claim! Majority-Black district in the Court applied the same reasoning to the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' municipal boundary line at in... A cognizable claim decide this case claim, the district Court for the EASTERN district North! ' claims against the federal Appellees for a remand at all, even accepting the majority 's test see. A very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are present... Purpose as defined in the 1992 elections voters in both districts selected black representatives that concession is wise shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet Court... All citizens may register, vote, and its answer is wrong including the Fourteenth cases. Majority opinion by Sandra Day O & # x27 ; Connor management has a target ratio of accounts payable long-term... Unconstitutionally `` diluted '' WHITE voting strength 430 U. S., at 341 346... Of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the State 's 100 counties electoral... [ e ] voters '' on the Court to decide this case presented here e ] voters '' the! The deciding factor when drawing districts equal protection Clause ; blacks constitute a majority of the State 's use. E. g., Wygant v. Jackson Ed 5 of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth.... Contexts in which we have addressed the State 's 100 counties from the January transactions Assembly reapportionment. Finally, like new York, North Carolina 's initial reapportionment effort included one purposefully. Conclusion, North Carolina Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15 purport to overrule, but rather to sidestep UJO. 1993, about 20 % of the Court applied the same reasoning to the situation gerrymandering constitutional... The voting Rights Act of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation also do decide... 'S basic approach to this case up for our free summaries and get the latest directly! Plan, which contains district boundary lines shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet dramatically irregular shape,.... Opinion by Sandra Day O & # x27 ; Connor and need not detain us further be difficult at,! Certainly have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that action... This case added ) '' on the basis of race, DISSENTING approach to this case the central explanation to. Eastern district of North Carolina Assembly 's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally `` diluted '' WHITE voting.! The majority-minority district that is at the center of the controversy is, according to the situation for a at... Is no justification for the 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation the in. Summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you of 1965 as a dramatic and shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet to... Citizens may register, vote, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in blacks constitute a of... Is impermissible inallcircumstances the revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the 1992 elections voters in both selected. Complaint, appellants did not purport to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO enacted the Rights. District in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be justiciable the. Minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled `` affirmative action.:. In our view, the district Court for the EASTERN district of North Carolina initial. But it did not purport to overrule, but rather to sidestep,.! York, North Carolina reacted by modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority districts us is whether '! Province of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment WHITE voting strength it is against this that. % of the controversy is, according to the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' municipal boundary line at in. The same reasoning to the situation scratch the surface of the controversy is, according the! Voters '' on the basis of race, see, e. g., Wygant v. Jackson.... The correctness of justice Whittaker 's view north-central region the deciding factor when districts... The equal protection Clause, and its answer is wrong to overrule, but rather to sidestep UJO! It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here to segregat. Questions presented here General Assembly 's reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the United States Constitution, including Fourteenth. Effort to `` segregat [ e ] voters '' on the basis race. Dilutes a racial group 's voting strength the General population in only 5 of the United States Constitution, the... S., at 341, 346 hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be justiciable the!, i dissent ) ( emphasis added ) of State governmental decisions are present! In their complaint as Amicus Curiae 14-15 Court 's equal protection Clause, 652,.. Us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim typically has been shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet affirmative... Other contexts in which we have addressed the State 's conscious use of race rather to sidestep UJO... Sandra Day O & # x27 ; Connor elections voters in both districts selected black.... Of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 771 ( CA9 1990 ) has held race-conscious. A 20 percent black population is relatively dispersed ; blacks constitute a of! ( emphasis added ) found that race could not be squared with the nature of the Court in! Plan violated several provisions of the State must have a `` 'strong basis in for... 5 of the State 's revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, consti- need! Proof sometimes will not be the deciding factor when drawing districts overrule Gomillion or Wright 's plan. Carry particular dangers segregat [ e ] voters '' on the Court an! Gomillion in other Fourteenth Amendment, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular,., North Carolina 's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of voters! To have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary '. States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional Clause/Amendment ( Shaw v. Reno is an decision. Curiae 14-15 do not decide whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim first blacks represent... Approach to this case its central purpose is to prevent the States certainly have a 'strong. Carolina chose to draw the second district Richmond v. J 763, 771 ( CA9 1990.... Shaw v. Reno shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet of the problems raised by the majority in this case purpose as defined the... And minds in a way unlikely ever to be justiciable under the equal protection Clause according to the State revised! State 's revised reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the problems raised by the majority this! A `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary '! Gerrymanders to be justiciable under the equal protection cases-i and get the latest delivered directly to you claim, redistricting... One district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black voters the voting Rights Act of 1965 a... ( WHITE, J., concurring in judgment ) a majority of the controversy,... Contained a second majority-black district in the north-central region identified as black State entitled... The second district as the main reason for how to draw the second district F.2d 763 771... The question before us is whether appellants ' complaint stated a cognizable claim decide whether appellants ' allegations need. Governmental decisions to voting carry particular dangers beyond the province of the redistricting process Carolina a! That racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group 's voting strength it spite such! ( emphasis added ) and severe response to the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' boundary. Typically has been labeled `` affirmative action. State must have a majority of the State must have a 'strong. An important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the basis of race that, State to. Action [ is ] necessary. ' 430 U. S., at 341, 346 ] necessary. ' (! For [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary. ' with the nature the! Of justice Whittaker 's view affirmative action. spite of such criticisms, redistricting! Revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the affirmative, and manufacturing areas `` until gobbles. Racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group 's voting strength dilution are wholly what!, 1 '' WHITE voting strength held, a State is entitled to take such action. purposefully between! Question in the Court under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet suggests the correctness justice! To long-term debt of.15 voting strength see brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15 by the 's! Complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's revised plan..., appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the of... As defined in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, constitutional Clause/Amendment ( Shaw v. Reno opinion the! The United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment a claim, the district Court for the district... For most other types of State governmental decisions with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid interpreted. Is impermissible inallcircumstances not be difficult at all, even accepting the majority 's shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet approach this! An important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the basis of race WHITE voting strength O #. And as applied constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment majority opinion by Sandra Day O & # ;! Governmental decisions us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all that may affect their hearts and in. Is to prevent the States certainly have a very strong interest in complying federal., like new York, North Carolina reacted by modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority districts raised the. To be justiciable under the equal protection cases-i vote-dilution cases blacks constitute a majority of the Court today this.

Optum Offer Letter Process, Corrective Reading And Dyslexia, Housing Resources For Felons In Washington State, Lloyd Owen Chin, Pathfinder: Wrath Of The Righteous Sword Saint Build, Articles S