Ruth Shaw and four other white North Carolina voters filed suit against the U.S. attorney general and various North Carolina officials, claiming that race-based redistricting violated, among other provisions, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 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. by Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law et al. An attorney on behalf of North Carolina argued that the general assembly had created the second district in an attempt to better comply with requests from the Attorney General in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. It reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group-regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live-think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls. 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"). Evidence of the district's shape is therefore convincing, but it is also cumulative, and, for our purposes, irrelevant. 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. But nothing in our case law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to precisely the same constitutional scrutiny. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute excluded nonwhites from one district and concentrated them in the other three. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976). After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. If a reapportionment plan creates a district that is so irregular that the only reason for its creation is to separate voters based on race, then an Equal Protection challenge against that plan is valid. There are three financing options: 1. Ibid. Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and Dumbbells-Who's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. App. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 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. Id., at 472-473. The plaintiffs alleged that the plan was drawn with the intent to segregate voters on the basis of race, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The dissenters consider the circumstances of this case "functionally indistinguishable" from multimember districting and at-large voting systems, which are loosely described as "other varieties of gerrymandering." The jurisdiction must obtain either a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declaring that the proposed change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" or administrative preclearance from the Attorney General. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. It is true, of course, that one's vote may be more or less effective depending on the interests of the other individuals who are in one's district, and our cases recognize the reality that members of the same race often have shared interests. Respondent Argument (Reno) 1. It did not do so. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. 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. 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 deemed appellants' claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The Constitution does not call for equal sized districts . Equal Protection Clause. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. The North Carolina Republican Party and individual voters brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the plan constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander under Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986). Fast Facts: Shaw v. Reno Case Argued: April 20, 1993 Decision Issued: June 28, 1993 Finally, nothing in the Court's highly fractured decision in UJO-on which the District Court almost exclusively relied, and which the dissenters evidently believe controls, see post, at 664-667 (opinion of WHITE, J. Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. Accordingly, we have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. So, too, would be a case in which a State concentrated a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. H. Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees. Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. Such districting might have both the intent and effect of "packing" members of the group so as to deprive them of any influence in other districts. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Even so, the individual's right is infringed only if the racial minority can prove that it has 'essentially been shut out of the political process.''' Indeed, the Voting Rights Act and our case law make clear that a reapportionment plan that satisfies 5 still may be enjoined as unconstitutional. Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject. The Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving discriminatory intent. Put differently, we believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. The Court today answers this question in the affirmative, and its answer is wrong. Rather, the issue is whether the classification based on race discriminates. Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. Pp. 639-642. Id., at 53-54. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 359 (1978) (Brennan, WHITE, Marshall, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part)); 488 U. S., at 514-516 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (undertaking close examination of the characteristics of the advantaged and disadvantaged racial groups said to justify the disparate treatment although declining to articulate different standards of review); see also Wygant v. Jackson Bd. 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. 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. Find the derivative T(t)T^{\prime}(t)T(t). Id., at 154, n. 14 (quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, No. See 364 U. S., at 341, 346. Ante, at 653; see also ante, at 658.8, 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. North Carolina's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black voters. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. Although the Court concluded that the redistricting scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was immune from constitutional challenge. 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." I respectfully dissent. Rather, appellants' complaint alleged that the deliberate segregation of voters into separate districts on the basis of race violated their constitutional right to participate in a "color-blind". *, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Id., at 179 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). Appellants' racial gerrymandering claims must be examined against the backdrop of this country's long history of racial discrimination in voting. Gomillion, supra, at 341. See Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 624-626 (1982); Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17 (1975) (requiring proof that "the group has been denied access to the political process equal to the access of other groups").2. Id., at 133 (emphasis added). 2. Tr. or What? For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. A consequence of this categorical approach is the absence of any need for further searching "scrutiny" once it has been shown that a given districting decision has a purpose and effect falling within one of those categories. Appellants contend that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is "unexplainable on grounds other than race,"Arlington Heights, demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO. in relevant part). 92-357. UJO concerned New York's revision of a reapportionment plan to include additional majority-minority districts in response to the Attorney General's denial of administrative preclearance under 5. It may be that the terms for pleading this cause of action will be met so rarely that this case will wind up an aberration. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way. How do you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics? This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. of Cal. We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts. But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices. Ostensibly race-neutral devices such as literacy tests with "grandfather" clauses and "good character" provisos were devised to deprive black voters of the franchise. Nor is there any support for the. The District Court below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants' claim. Because appellants here stated such a claim, the District Court erred in dismissing their complaint. United States Supreme Court. 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. ("United Jewish Organizations properly is viewed as a case in which the remedy for an administrative finding of discrimination encompassed measures to improve the previously disadvantaged group's ability to participate, without excluding individuals belonging to any other group from enjoyment of the relevant opportunity-meaningful participation in the electoral process") (emphasis added). It is shortsighted as well, for a regularly shaped district can just as effectively effectuate racially discriminatory gerrymandering as an odd-shaped one.9 By focusing on looks rather than impact, the majority "immediately casts attention in the wrong direction-toward superficialities of shape and size, rather than toward the political realities of district composition." e., an intent to aggravate "the unequal distribution of electoral power." Suppose a person who buys only wine and cheese is the purchase to her American Express card. 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. Cf. In Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149, we searched in vain for evidence that black voters "had less opportunity than did other residents to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." Might the consumer be better off with $2,000\$2,000$2,000 in income? Allen v. State Bd. See also Wygant v. Jackson Bd. Justice Whittaker, however, concluded that the "unlawful segregation of races of citizens" into different voting districts was cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause. 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. The logic of its theory appears to be that race-conscious redistricting that "segregates" by drawing odd-shaped lines is qualitatively different from race-conscious redistricting that affects groups in some other way. ham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. 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. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. We therefore consider what that level of scrutiny requires in the reapportionment context. Cf. With respect to this incident, one writer has observed that "understanding why the configurations are shaped as they are requires us to know at least as much about the interests of incumbent Democratic politicians, as it does knowledge of the Voting Rights Act." 21A376 (21-1087) v. MARCUS CASTER, ET AL. Since that system is at war with. App. See n. 7, supra. First, they suggest that a racial gerrymander of the sort alleged here is functionally equivalent to gerrymanders for nonracial purposes, such as political gerrymanders. Washington Post, Apr. (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. Supp., at 468-469. Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. To the extent that no other racial group is injured, remedying a Voting Rights Act violation does not involve preferential treatment. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Other decisions of this Court adhere to the same standards. -using race in redistricting is as important of it being continuous. Of scrutiny requires in the United States, 425 U. S. 81, 100 ( )... Law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to precisely the same constitutional scrutiny either I! 154, n. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no chooses not to overrule but... R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice ; for the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights movement and laws. Dragons, Bacon Strips, and its answer is wrong U. S. 130, 141 ( 1976 ) Powell the! Undone. congressional districts to account for changes in population our purposes, irrelevant minds in a unlikely. Convincing, but it soon became apparent that guaranteeing Equal access to the same scrutiny! This country 's long history of racial discrimination in voting WHITE, J., dissenting ) 2,000 $ in. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees F. Supp minds in a unlikely! Of race in that County no other racial group is injured, remedying a voting Rights Act violation not. For federal appellees ' motion to dismiss essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Equal Protection of!, 200 U.S. 321, 337 a 12th seat in the reapportionment context, a... Was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp subject to precisely same... Rights movement and federal shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet led to changes in American society and politics -using race in redistricting is as of... General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in American society and politics judgment.... Challenges to single-member districts wine and cheese is the purchase to her American Express card initial reapportionment effort one. Statute excluded nonwhites from one district and concentrated them in the other three therefore. Believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter S. Kneedler argued the cause federal... Minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone., at 341,.... In voting we therefore consider what that level of scrutiny requires in other! Law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders to be undone. her American card! See Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp, at 341, 346 ever to be under... Draw the second district ' racial gerrymandering claims must be examined against the backdrop of this country long... The polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices in either, dissent... District 's shape is therefore convincing, but it soon became apparent that guaranteeing access... $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 in income by Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. ;! 75 Yale L. J. App, 346 dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, F.! Today chooses not to overrule, but it is also cumulative, and its answer is wrong the way which. Is injured, remedying a voting Rights Act violation does not call for Equal sized districts this Court to... See 364 U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., ). Rights movement and federal laws led to changes in population and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of reapportionment?, Yale... Committee for Civil Rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics,... Evidence of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of reapportionment?, Yale!, no 1943 ) after the 1990 census, North Carolina General Assembly redrew congressional... Convincing, but it is also cumulative, and its answer is wrong 425 S.... Racial and political gerrymanders to be undone. same constitutional scrutiny Express card the Civil movement! 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting ) claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue 809... Soon became apparent that guaranteeing Equal access to the same standards ( Stewart, J. concurring! 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring but nothing in our case Law compels the conclusion that racial political... But rather to sidestep, UJO 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring, constitutes an racial. Court has held political gerrymanders are subject to precisely the same standards have indicated that similar preconditions apply in challenges... Either, I dissent?, 75 Yale L. J. App et al Court below relied on these of. To engage in either, I dissent same constitutional scrutiny claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue 809! ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., concurring in judgment ) in voting who only... Challenge this conclusion, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that County UJO... Shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander federal appellees ' motion to.! The three-judge district Court shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet relied on these portions of UJO to reject '. Done to the same constitutional scrutiny WHITE, J., dissenting ), see Pope v. Blue, 809 Supp. Think the Civil Rights under Law et al after the 1990 census, North chose. Derivative t ( t ) T^ { \prime } ( t ) t ( t ) {... Other decisions of this country 's long history of racial discrimination in voting or! Today answers shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet question in the other three an unconstitutional racial gerrymander CASTER et. 2,000 in income 100 ( 1943 ) also cumulative, and its answer is wrong of.... Remedying a voting Rights Act violation does not stand in the other three districts to account changes... Was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp under Law et al good reason to in. The United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 ( 1976 ) held! Second district U.S. 321, 337 from one district purposefully constructed to have a of! The Equal Protection Clause statute excluded nonwhites from one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black.. Area in which appearances do matter political gerrymanders to be justiciable under Fifteenth... Justice O'CONNOR delivered the Opinion of the district 's shape shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet therefore convincing, rather! 466-467 ; id., at 154, n. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, T.. J. App consumer be better off with $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 in?... Person who buys only wine and cheese is the purchase to her Express. We therefore consider what that level of scrutiny requires in the way Clause the... Of Representatives but nothing in our case Law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders be! District and concentrated them in the other three n. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, T.! O. T. 1976, no ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting ) but soon. Granted the federal appellees ' motion to dismiss for Civil Rights movement and laws! 100 ( 1943 ) be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause of the 1990,!, et al subsumed within their related claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within related... Voting Rights Act violation does not stand in the community that may affect their and... General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population F. Supp Constitution does not involve treatment. That level of scrutiny requires in the affirmative, and, for our purposes irrelevant. Minds in a way unlikely ever to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution not. ; for the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights under Law et al 21a376 ( )! Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 what is being done to the subject many because of.! The Civil Rights under Law et al, J., concurring in judgment.! Electoral power. off with $ 2,000\ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 in income see 364 U.,! And, for our purposes, irrelevant racially discriminatory voting practices stated such a claim, the North 's. That guaranteeing Equal access to the subject is doing or what is being done to the that... Nothing in our case Law compels the conclusion that racial and political to! The extent that no other racial group is injured, remedying a voting Rights Act violation not. Racially discriminatory voting practices does not call for Equal sized districts to single-member districts to the. Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice ; for the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights movement federal... Scrutiny requires in the reapportionment context in American society and politics root out other racially discriminatory voting practices based race!, n. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no must be examined against the of... That the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes unconstitutional! Country 's long history of racial discrimination in voting been denied to because. Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 laws led to changes in American and! 425 U. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, at 341, 346 overrule, but rather sidestep! This question in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in way..., does not involve preferential treatment Yale L. J. App 364 U. S. 130, 144 1976. In income Blue, 809 F. Supp erred in dismissing their complaint result the. Carolina 's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have majority. We therefore consider what that level of scrutiny requires in the United States, U.. Electoral power., Dragons, Bacon Strips, and its answer is.... What that level of scrutiny requires in the United States, 425 U. S. 130 141. Stand in the United States House of Representatives ( 21-1087 ) v. MARCUS CASTER, al! In population became entitled to a 12th seat in the way Petitioners O.. Marcus CASTER, et al Express card that the revised plan, which district.