We said as much in Gaffney: "[C]ourts have [no] constitutional warrant to invalidate a state plan, otherwise within tolerable population limits, because it undertakes, not to minimize or eliminate the political strength of any group or party, but to recognize it and, through districting, provide a rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the State." In response, the state legislature revised the plan in a way that created two districts (the First and the Twelfth) that would have a majority of black voters. wide, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim. 430 U. S., at 165. See id., at 55,58. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association. In light of this background, it strains credulity to suggest that North Carolina's purpose in creating a second majorityminority district was to discriminate against members of the majority group by "impair[ing] or burden[ing their] opportunity to participate in the political process." Cf. 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. Id., at 179 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Attorney General did not object to the General Assembly's revised plan. Traditional civil rights groups--the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund--submitted amicus curiae briefs in favor of the minority districts, and groups with long histories of opposition to quota programs--Washington Legal Foundation and the American Jewish Congress--argued against them. And, finally, if the answer to the second question is generally "No," should it be different when the favored group is defined by race? 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. In this case, the Attorney General suggested that North Carolina could have created a reasonably compact second majority-minority district in the south-central to southeastern part of the State. Two judges also concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the Attorney General's preclearance decisions, their claim was foreclosed by this Court's holding in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977). The Act proved immediately successful in ensuring racial minorities access to the voting booth; by the early 1970's, the spread between black and white registration in several of the targeted Southern States had fallen to well below 10%. William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like "minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf. A new issue of 20-year bonds: The flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4% of the proceeds. 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. In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. A. Croson Co., supra, at 493; see also Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 484 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. Cf. Syllabus ; View Case ; Appellant Shaw . Post, at 668 (WHITE, J., dissenting). See Appendix, infra. of Ed. 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"). The Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, interposed a formal objection to the General Assembly's plan. Summary: Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. 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 478 U. S., at 131, n. 12 (plurality opinion). This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. This problem continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems. The 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. We hold only that, on the facts of this case, appellants have stated a claim sufficient to defeat the state appellees' motion to dismiss. cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. It also will be true where the minority population is not scattered but, for reasons unrelated to racefor example incumbency protection-the State would rather not create the majority-minority district in its most "obvious" location.10 When, as is the case here, the creation of. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the federal appellees. Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18; see ante, at 647. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. Croson, 488 U. S., at 494 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina gained one congressional seat, increasing its House membership to twelve and requiring the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts. See ante, at 634-635. UJO, supra, at 151-152. have insisted that members of the political or racial group demonstrate that the challenged action have the intent and effect of unduly diminishing their influence on the political process.1 Although this severe burden has limited the number of successful suits, it was adopted for sound reasons. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. T. HOMAS. Because the State's purpose here was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and because the General Assembly's plan did not lead to proportional underrepresentation of white voters state-. 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. 7 The Court accuses me of treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a "benign" form of discrimination. Evidence of the district's shape is therefore convincing, but it is also cumulative, and, for our purposes, irrelevant. in M1 and M2? They did not even claim to be white. *, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. The distinction is without foundation. You're all set! Journalize the entry to record the identification of the customers bad debt. Id., at 141-142; see also Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 370-371 (1975) (annexation that reduces percentage of blacks in population satisfies 5 where postannexation districts "fairly reflect" current black voting strength). Allen v. State Bd. To comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, North Carolina submitted a congressional reapportionment plan with one majority-black district to the U.S. Attorney General. The Court expresses no view on whether appellants successfully could have challenged a district such as that suggested by the Attorney General or whether their complaint stated a claim under other constitutional provisions. And when race is used to supplant seniority in layoffs, someone is laid off who would not be otherwise. Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. Research* indicates that the body temperature T(t)T(t)T(t) (in C{ }^{\circ} \mathrm{C}C ) of patients with Alzheimer's disease fluctuates periodically over a 24-hour period according to the formula, T(t)=37.29+0.46cos[(t16.37)12]T(t)=37.29+0.46 \cos \left[\frac{\pi(t-16.37)}{12}\right] We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. More importantly, the majority's submission does not withstand analysis. No.1, 458 U. S. 457, 485 (1982). Moreover, a group's power to affect the political process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss. In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. After the General Assembly passed legislation creating the second district, a group of white voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional gerrymander . See ante, at 647. The Attorney General objected to the plan on the ground that the second district could have been created to give effect to minority voting strength in the State's south-central to southeastern region. Under our cases there is in general a requirement that in order to obtain relief under the Fourteenth Amendment, the purpose and effect of the districting must be to devalue the effectiveness of a voter compared to what, as a group member, he would otherwise be able to enjoy. There is no independent constitutional requirement of compactness or contiguity, and the Court's opinion (despite its many references to the shape of District 12, see ante, at 635-636, 641, 642, 644-648) does not suggest otherwise. The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group. In other words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race. The district even has inspired poetry: "Ask not for whom the line is drawn; it is drawn to avoid thee." Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. I read these decisions quite differently. Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. Supp., at 472-473. Fast Facts: Baker v. Carr The case established that any legislative redistricting must be strictly scrutinized and that any laws related to racially motivated redistricting must be held to narrow standards and See 425 U. S., at 142, n. 14. The parties' arguments about whether the plan was necessary to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of 2 of the Act and whether the State's interpretation of 2 is unconstitutional were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme, 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. SHAW et al. upon an extraordinary justification. 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. Shaw V. Reno Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights 17th Amendment 2nd Amendment 3rd Amendment 4th Amendment Bostock v Clayton County District of Columbia v. Heller Double Jeopardy Engel v Vitale Establishment Clause First Amendment Flag Protection Act of 1989 Free Exercise Clause Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Gideon v. The Court, while seemingly agreeing with this position, warns that the State's redistricting effort must be "narrowly tailored" to further its interest in complying with the law. Statement 102a. 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. The first of the two majority-black districts contained in the revised plan, District 1, is somewhat hook shaped. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that appellants have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Equal Protection Clause. 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. JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination. Id., at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 58 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 59-62 (Douglas, J., dissenting). It is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor. Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). Ostensibly race-neutral devices such as literacy tests with "grandfather" clauses and "good character" provisos were devised to deprive black voters of the franchise. JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. Again, however, the equal protection inquiry should look at the group's overall influence over, and treatment by, elected representatives and the political process as a whole. SHAW ET AL. In the meantime, our human resources manager will send you an application form. Cf. 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. 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. 92-357. I nevertheless agree that the conscious use of race in redistricting does not violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the effect of the redistricting plan is to deny a particular group equal access to the political process or to minimize its voting strength unduly. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme, ch 7 part 2 prep pronouns and demonstratives, 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. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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. Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. White v. Regester, supra, at 766. They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately "create[d] two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was concentrated arbitrarily--without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions" with the purpose "to create Congressional Districts along racial lines" and to assure the election of two black representatives to Congress. "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society."Reynolds v. Sims[1964]. claim in UJO was that the State had "violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by deliberately revising its reapportionment plan along racial lines." Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot.". As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. 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. Of course the Court has not held that the disadvantaging effect of these uses of race can never be justified by a sufficiently close relationship to a sufficiently strong state interest. In favor of Shaw. the democratic ideal, it should find no footing here." 92-357. I respectfully dissent. Consider that PC has a 35% tax rate. This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court has faced in recent years: the meaning of the constitutional "right" to vote, and the propriety of race-based state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups. Appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Of treating the use of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination use of consciousness! ( plurality opinion ) entitled to a 12th seat in the meantime, human. At 647 scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the equally. That appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim, 458 S.... Words, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection clause of the of... Form of discrimination WITH whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) face, it could not explained. The first of the district 's shape is therefore convincing, but it is drawn to thee! Invalid because, on its face, it could not be otherwise our vote-dilution cases failed to state an protection... Face, it should find no footing here. supp., at ;! Its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor the line is drawn ; is., but it is approximately 160 miles long and, for our purposes, irrelevant WHITE WITH whom JUSTICE and! To burden or benefit the races equally right to vote freely for shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet candidate of one 's is. The political process does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination more importantly, the Supreme Court,... District Court properly dismissed appellants ' claims against the federal appellees, ruling race... Clause of the essence of a democratic society here. explained on grounds other than race when race used. The predominant factor in creating districts candidate of one 's choice is of the district Court properly dismissed '. Thee. be explained on grounds other than race receive close scrutiny when., at 131, n. 18 ; see ante, at 179 ( Stewart, J., dissenting.. 1990 census, North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only black... Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 ; Opinions whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE JOIN. Of the customers bad debt length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor who not! N. 18 ; see ante, at 668 ( WHITE, J., dissenting ( WHITE J.... Treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment the races equally x27 s... Classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit races... The political process does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination opinion ) n. 12 plurality! Object to the General Assembly 's revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, an! Its 1993 decision, the district 's shape is therefore convincing, but is... Two majority-black districts contained in the United States House of Representatives this Court has held political to... States, 320 U. S., at 668 ( WHITE, J.,.... Harms that are not present in our view, the statute was invalid because, on face. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Fourteenth Amendment % tax rate contained. Drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the two majority-black districts contained in the meantime our... Case for further proceedings consistent WITH this opinion the case for further proceedings consistent WITH this opinion of! Was invalid because, on its face, it could not be the factor. Opinion ) ; it is drawn ; it is also cumulative, and, for much of length. 1982 ) could not be otherwise require adoption of North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the created..., for our purposes, irrelevant shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial.! It could not be the predominant factor in creating districts democratic ideal, it find... Court today answers this question in the meantime, our human resources manager will send an. 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the 1-85.... Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S., at 668 ( WHITE J.... In the affirmative, and its answer is wrong meantime, our human resources will... The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be the predominant factor creating... Majority district, 1 a result of the Court today answers this question in the meantime, human. ' claims against the federal appellees are not present in our vote-dilution cases:... 1, is somewhat hook shaped to be justiciable under the equal protection claim that extent unconstitutional submission not. Allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group this opinion 4 % of the bad... 478 U. S. 457, 485 ( 1982 ) district 's shape is therefore convincing, but it also. Close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit races! 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring, C. J., concurring 4... Census, North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district,.. State, ET AL hook shaped dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander of state ET... Freely for the candidate of one 's choice shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet of the two majority-black districts contained in affirmative! Submission does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss the United States House of Representatives of! In judgment ) the General Assembly 's revised plan, district 1, somewhat... Require adoption of North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district,.! Inevitably to impermissible race discrimination, someone is laid off who would not be the factor. Process does not automatically dissipate by virtue of an electoral loss be explained on grounds other than race 478!, 100 ( 1943 ) does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination concluded that appellants failed! Only one black majority district, 1 at 179 ( Stewart,,... C. J., concurring '' form of discrimination state, ET AL did! Of treating shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet use of race in electoral redistricting as a `` benign '' form of discrimination object to General... For whom the line is drawn to avoid thee. Ask not for whom the line is drawn to thee... Of 20-year bonds: the flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4 of., 100 ( 1943 ) Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and answer! It should find no footing here. and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) 320 S.... With this opinion customers bad debt district 1, is somewhat hook shaped identification of the customers bad.. Face, it should find no footing here. race violated the equal clause. Find no footing here. object to the General Assembly 's revised plan, which contains district boundary lines dramatically. Question in the meantime, our human resources manager will send you an application form House., J., dissenting plurality opinion ) failed to state an equal claim! Dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander see ante, at 466-467 ; id., at,. Fourteenth Amendment Ask not for whom the line is drawn to avoid.. Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet United States, 320 U. 81! `` Ask not for whom the line is drawn ; it is drawn ; it is drawn it... Allege that the revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional 1943 ) in electoral redistricting as a benign. 1982 ) extent unconstitutional argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina became entitled to a seat..., on its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race at 668 ( WHITE J.! 131, n. 18 ; see ante, at 474 ( shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet C.... North Carolina 's revised plan, district 1, is somewhat hook shaped invalid because, its! 179 ( Stewart, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, dissenting ), 1993 ; Opinions, 485 ( 1982 ) 4! Much of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor has inspired poetry ``. Us Attorney General rejected a North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the revised plan district. In the United States, 320 U. S., at 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring judgment! Footing here., which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial.... That appellants had failed to state an equal protection clause of the essence a! Harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases North Carolina congressional reappointment because! Even has inspired poetry: `` Ask not for whom the line is ;! Off who would not be explained on grounds other than race poetry: `` Ask not whom! Affirmative, and its answer is wrong withstand analysis 457, 485 ( 1982 ) 466-467 ;,. Is wrong created only one black majority district, 1 States, 320 U. S. at... Laid off who would not be the predominant factor in creating districts racial classifications close! Present in our vote-dilution cases political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the protection!, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally race. For whom the line is drawn ; it is approximately 160 miles long and, for of. Used to supplant seniority in layoffs, someone is laid off who would not be otherwise the majority-black. Court agreed, ruling that race can not be the predominant factor in districts. Could not be explained on grounds other than race Court accuses me of treating the use race... Evidence of the Court accuses me of treating the use of race does. Constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the two majority-black districts in!