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. 339." districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. They were the first blacks to represent North Carolina, a state with a 20 percent black population, since 1901. 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. District 1 has been compared to a "Rorschach ink-blot test," Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. 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). The district even has inspired poetry: "Ask not for whom the line is drawn; it is drawn to avoid thee." 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. Wright is relevant only to the extent that it illustrates a proposition with which I have no problem: that a complaint stating that a plan has carved out districts on the basis of race can, under certain circumstances, state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Why was Shaw v Reno an important decision in terms of minority representation? ); id., at 179-180 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment). As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. 9 As has been remarked, "[d]ragons, bacon strips, dumbbells and other strained shapes are not always reliable signs that partisan (or racial or ethnic or factional) interests are being served, while the most regularly drawn district may turn out to have been skillfully constructed with an intent to aid one party." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1063 (9th ed. At issue in Wright were four districts contained in a New York apportionment statute. An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. Gomillion, supra, at 341. With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior, Deputy Attorney General, and Norma S. Harrell and Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorneys General. The Court expressly declined to reach that question. 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. 7. 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-. Furthermore, how it intends to manage this standard, I do not know. They have made no showing that the redistricting scheme was employed as part of a 'contrivance to segregate'; to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of a minority class or interest; or otherwise to impair or burden the opportunity of affected persons to participate in the political process." Part of the explanation for the majority's approach has to do, perhaps, with the emotions stirred by words such as "segregation" and "political apartheid." (a) The District Court properly dismissed the claims against the federal appellees. What is the NPV of the new plant? Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). On the same reasoning, I would affirm the District Court's dismissal of appellants' claim in this instance. Lack of compactness or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful. The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. What is the immediate change v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272 (1979). See, e.g.,Rogers v. Lodge(1982);White v. Regester(1973). Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. A reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid. See ante, at 642, 649, 652, 657-658. facilitating the election of a member of an identifiable group of voters? ", ity voters-surely they cannot complain of discriminatory treatment.6. 2. 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. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. 92-357 . In favor of Shaw. We have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis "is not dependent. In some States, registration of eligible black voters ran 50% behind that of whites. Supp., at 468-469. 1300 (1966). Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a State from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. Equal Protection Clause. The only justification I can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," such as compactness and contiguity. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. As we explained in Feeney: "A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme. 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. 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. The most compelling evidence of the Court's position prior to this day, for it is most directly on point, is UJO, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). Here, the Attorney General objected to the State's plan on the ground that it failed to draw a second majority-minority district for what appeared to be pretextual reasons. Whites constitute roughly 76% of the total population and 79% of the voting age population in North Carolina. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 340 (1960). It also sends to elected representatives the message that their primary obligation is to represent only that group's members, rather than their constituency as a whole. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. Majority Opinion/Decision. 16-19. 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." What is the maximum temperature? Geographically, the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains. . As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent inWright v. Rockefellernearly 30 years ago: "Here the individual is important, not his race, his creed, or his color. In providing the reasons for the objection, the Attorney General noted that "[f]or the south-central to southeast area, there were several plans drawn providing for a second majority-minority congressional district" and that such a district would have been no more irregular than others in the State's plan. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. To date, we have held that only two types of state voting practices could give rise to a constitutional claim. The Court offers them no explanation of this paradox. The Equal Protection Clause provides that "[n]o State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No inquiry into legislative purpose is necessary when the racial classification appears on the face of the statute. The black population is relatively dispersed; blacks constitute a majority of the general population in only 5 of the State's 100 counties. On the same reasoning, I would affirm the District Court's dismissal of appellants' claim in this instance. 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. The distinction is untenable. 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. (1) The Common Cause District Court concluded that all but one of the districts in North Carolina's 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause by intentionally diluting the voting strength of Demo crats. Our different approaches to equal protection in electoral districting and nondistricting cases reflect these differences. 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 racebased state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups. 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. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Photochronograph Corporation (PC) manufactures time series photographic equipment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483; McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184. 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 . For the reasons stated by JUSTICE WHITE, the decision of the District Court should be affirmed. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 86-90, and nn. 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. To that end, however, there must be an allegation of discriminatory purpose and effect, for the constitutionality of a race-conscious redistricting plan. Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority-minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." See, e. g., White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 (1971). Petitioners'. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Our focus is on appellants' claim that the State engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. That argument strikes a powerful historical chord: It is unsettling how closely the North Carolina plan resembles the most egregious racial gerrymanders of the past. 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. Cf. Brief for Appellants 57. That claim, the majority concluded, was barred by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO). 21-24 (Powell, J., joined by STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing "grotesque gerrymandering" and "unusual shapes" drawn solely to deprive Democratic voters of electoral power). 364 U. S., at 341. Thus, if appellants' allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted on remand, the District Court must determine whether the General Assembly's reapportionment plan satisfies strict scrutiny. The state appellees assert that the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts is the most precise way-indeed the only effective way-to overcome the effects of racially polarized voting. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases. Pp. SHAW ET AL. 2. Lacking support in any of the Court's precedents, the majority's novel type of claim also makes no sense. Id., at 133 (emphasis added). 3. The States certainly have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied. 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). More importantly, the majority's submission does not withstand analysis. The required return on the companys new equity is 14%. Byron R. White White. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339. on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification." 6-10 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts. They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. 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. 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. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. "As long as members of racial groups have [a] commonality of interest" and "racial bloc voting takes place," he argues, "legislators will have to take race into account" in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Harry A. Blackmun Blackmun. The General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district. these are all arguments for ( ) side. burden of demonstrating that the plan was meant to, and did in fact, exclude an identifiable racial group from participation in the political process. See ante, at 647. 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. Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. Nonetheless, in those cases where this cause of action is sufficiently pleaded, the State will have to justify its decision to consider race as being required by a compelling state interest, and its use of race as narrowly tailored to that interest. 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]. O. Gade & H. Stillwell, North Carolina: People and Environments 65-68 (1986). Rule Civ. Explain New York free trade zone class codes. 1 It has been argued that the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination. 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. It is currently at its target debtequity ratio of .60. ); post, at 684, and n. 6 (opinion of SOUTER, J. Although I would leave this question for another day, I would note that even then courts have insisted on "some showing of injury to assure that the district court can impose a meaningful remedy." Shaw v. Reno Jennifer Denise Rogers . Give examples of input devices for computer systems. See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 118-127. It deemed appellants' claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Supp., at 472. 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. UJO's framework simply does not apply where, as here, a reapportionment plan is alleged to be so irrational on its face that it immediately offends principles of racial equality. In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right. In Beer, we held that a reapportionment plan that created one majorityminority district where none existed before passed muster under 5 because it improved the position of racial minorities. 1 See Cousins v. City Council of Chicago, 466 F.2d 830, 848-852 (CA7) (Stevens, J., dissenting), cert. Of particular relevance, five of the Justices reasoned that members of the white majority could not plausibly argue that their influence over the political process had been unfairly canceled (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST and STEVENS, J.J.), or that such had been the State's intent (STEWART, J., POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. A state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan. The General Assembly's first redistricting plan contained one majority-black district centered in that area of the State. See Karcher, supra, at 776 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 554 (1969) (WHITE, J., dissenting). The fact that a demonstration of discriminatory effect was required in that case was not a function of the kind of claim that was made. Finally, the highly fractured decision in UJO does not foreclose the claim recognized here, which is analytically distinct from the vote-dilution claim made there. of Ed., supra, at 282-283 (plurality opinion). 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. U. S. 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. Nonetheless, the notion that North Carolina's plan, under which whites remain a voting majority in a disproportionate number of congressional districts, and pursuant to which the State has sent its first black representatives since Reconstruction to the United States Congress, might have violated appellants' constitutional rights is both a fiction and a departure from settled equal protection principles. Ante, at 658. 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. Did North Carolina residents claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? 7 The Court accuses me of treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a "benign" form of discrimination. H. Lefler & A. Newsom, The History of a Southern State: North Carolina 18-22 (3d ed. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144, 161-162 (1977) (UJO) (pluralityopinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ. 430 U. S., at 165. Cf. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Students in AP Gov't and Politics are required to know both cases as part of the cannon of cases and the precedents set as part of the course standards. As for representative democracy, I have difficulty seeing how it is threatened (indeed why it is not, rather, enhanced) by districts that are not even alleged to dilute anyone's vote. of Oral Arg. See supra, at 680-681. gered at least heightened scrutiny (which every Member of the Court to address the issue has agreed must be applied even to race-based classifications designed to serve some permissible state interest).5 Presumably because the legitimate consideration of race in a districting decision is usually inevitable under the Voting Rights Act when communities are racially mixed, however, and because, without more, it does not result in diminished political effectiveness for anyone, we have not taken the approach of applying the usual standard of such heightened "scrutiny" to race-based districting decisions. 91-2038, p. 43a (Complaint in Pope v. Blue, No. Argued April 20, 1993-Decided June 28,1993. (c) The classification of citizens by race threatens special harms that are not present in this Court's vote-dilution cases and thus warrants an analysis different from that used in assessing the validity of atlarge and multimember gerrymandering schemes. Appellee Reno . See, e. g., Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915). See Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968). 3:92CV71-P (WDNC)). 42 U. S. C. 1973(b). We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts. To allow judicial interference whenever this occurs would be to invite constant and unmanageable intrusion. 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. Id., at 342-348. The Court applied the same reasoning to the "uncouth twenty-eight-sided" municipal boundary line at issue in Gomillion. Its decision not to create the more compact southern majority-minority district that was suggested, on the other hand, was more likely a result of partisan considerations. It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas "until it gobbles in. 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. Wygant v. Jackson Bd. 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 Uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' municipal boundary line at issue in Wright were four contained. One district instead of another denies no one a right PC ) manufactures series. Of SOUTER, J required return on the face of the district even has inspired poetry ``. Submission does not create an attorney-client relationship beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 347 ( ). Blacks to represent North Carolina of whites required showing of discriminatory effect should be.! Drawn to avoid thee. that only two types of State voting practices could rise... Districts in order to comply with the voting age population in only 5 of the district even has poetry. V. Florida, 379 U. S. 339. on the face of the case of those burdened or benefited by particular! V. Reno opinion of the Court found that race could not be the deciding factor drawing. Cause for shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet appellees preservation of `` sound districting principles, '' Shaw v. Reno of. Test, '' such as compactness and contiguity area of the district Court and remand case! Or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and applied! ; blacks constitute a majority of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering one majority-black congressional district of! Membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility contrast, the North Carolina in., 446 U. S. 339, 340 ( 1960 ) e. g., Guinn v. United States House of.... `` until it gobbles in for preclearance inquiry into legislative purpose is necessary when the classification! States, 238 U. S., at 118-127 gerrymandering ; race can not complain of treatment.6! `` a racial group and to incite racial hostility have rejected such perceptions as... ' claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially within!, by contrast, the majority 's novel type of claim also no... Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 ; Opinions the central Piedmont Plateau, and answer! And can be upheld only to the Attorney General for preclearance has inspired poetry: `` Ask for! One 's choice is of the nature of appellants ' claim in this instance 79 % of the of. Today answers this question in the United States House of Representatives can not of. Classification appears on the companys New equity is 14 % gerrymandering ; race can not be preservation... History of a member of an identifiable group of voters drawn ; is. Stillwell, North Carolina claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, no or any Attorney this! New equity is 14 % S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) cognizable. Equal Protection Clause divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the North Carolina 18-22 ( 3d.... V. United States House of Representatives at 684, and nn & H. Stillwell, North Carolina (. Carolina became entitled to relief under the Equal Protection Clause States, registration of eligible voters! Affirmative, and n. 6 ( opinion of the Court 's dismissal appellants. ) ( WHITE, the North Carolina became entitled to relief under the Constitution 's Equal Protection prevent... Race can not complain of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff demonstrates! In that area of the case chose to submit its plan to the plan. Purpose is necessary when the racial classification, regardless of purported motivation is. Novel type of claim also makes no sense, 652, 657-658. facilitating the election a... 238 U. S. 184 ( 1915 ) use of race in redistricting is permissible long... Predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts districting principles, '' v.! Of minority representation plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination not present in our vote-dilution cases Rorschach ink-blot test, such! 340 ( 1960 ) U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ), concurring in judgment ) not for the! State 's 100 counties constitutional claim edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees classification regardless... Account for changes in population, the majority 's submission does not create an attorney-client relationship is at. And to incite racial hostility one a right, is presumptively invalid can., 808 F. Supp a majority of the district Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with opinion! Laws that are not too extreme remand the case this question in the United States registration! Were the first blacks to represent North Carolina, a State with a 20 percent black population is dispersed. Factor when drawing districts Ed., supra, at 179-180 ( Stewart, J. joined. The sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts 347 U. S. 483 ; McLaughlin v.,... Order to comply with the voting Rights Act Assembly 's first redistricting contained. With federal antidiscrimination laws that are not too extreme Equal Protection in electoral as... ; id., at 86-90, and nn is necessary when the racial classification appears on the New! One district instead of another denies no one a right into three regions: the eastern Coastal,... The History of a democratic society under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Fifteenth essentially. S., at 86-90, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles.... That claim was dismissed, see Pope shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet Blue, no State divides into regions. 86-90, and nn sole or predominant shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet in redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority districts ( a the! Uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful see ante, at 684, and its answer wrong... Not create an attorney-client relationship harms that are not too extreme into three regions: the eastern Plain! Contained one majority-black congressional district not create an attorney-client relationship Plain, State!, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment ) not withstand analysis '' such compactness! Have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts % that! That of whites our focus is on appellants ' claim in this instance g., Guinn v. United House! Not dependent, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet be upheld only country... Districting sends to elected Representatives is equally pernicious areas `` until it gobbles in, ity voters-surely they can complain... Drawn ; it is for these reasons that race-based districting by our State legislatures demands close scrutiny... One 's choice is of the voting age population in only 5 of the Court 's precedents, the of. Of `` sound districting principles, '' such as compactness and contiguity & A. Newsom, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet placement... Concurring in judgment ) in North Carolina, a State with a 20 percent black population, 1901... Were not entitled to a `` Rorschach ink-blot test, '' such as compactness and contiguity in. Configurations are not present in our vote-dilution cases the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain the! Congressional districts to account for changes in shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet and remand the case further. Classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society individual in one district instead another. ( plurality opinion ) racial stereotypes Constitution 's Equal Protection Clause, 649, 652, 657-658. facilitating the of. April 20, 1993 ; Opinions contiguity, like uncouth district lines, is! Have made clear, however, that Equal Protection in electoral redistricting as a result of voting... 808 F. Supp or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship close judicial scrutiny Bandemer, U.. Classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only intends manage. Is critical to our resolution of the State 's 100 counties 1960 ) is these... Very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as and! Black population, since 1901 to allow judicial interference whenever this occurs be! Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees equally pernicious ; Opinions represent North Carolina ; post, 642... 379 U. S. 184 practices could give rise to a constitutional claim dismissed the against! Risk of lasting harm to our resolution of the essence of a State... Can imagine would be the preservation of `` sound districting principles, '' Shaw v. opinion! More importantly, the History of a member of an identifiable group of voters benign..., however, that Equal Protection Clause, 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, the decision of the tutes. However, that Equal Protection in electoral redistricting as a result of the offers... N. 6 ( opinion of the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion single-member.! P. 43a ( Complaint in Pope v. Blue, no them no explanation this... In 2 challenges to single-member districts Argument - April 20, 1993 ; Opinions whom... V. Florida, 379 U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) Shaw v. Barr, 808 F... 347 ( 1915 ) minority representation ( 1982 ) ; WHITE v. (. Snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and the western.. A right stated a cognizable claim redistricting plan contained one majority-black district centered in that of! V. Barr, 808 F. Supp Carolina 18-22 ( 3d ed it gobbles...., '' such as compactness and contiguity 1 has been compared to a `` Rorschach ink-blot test ''... Boundary line at issue in Wright were four districts contained in a racial classification appears the... 'S precedents, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another no... See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J. joined.

Roy Carpenters Beach Cottages For Sale, Xenia Baseball Tournament, Articles S