); see also post, at 662-663 (opinion of WHITE, J.). Because Gingles involved North Carolina, which the Court admits has earlier established the existence of "pervasive racial bloc voting," ante, at 656, its citizens and legislators-as well as those from other States-will no doubt be confused by the Court's requirement of evidence in one type of case that the Constitution now prevents reliance on in another. Subsequent decisions of this Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning on the unconstitutional effect of the legislation. Appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the reapportionment scheme is so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. . Gomillion thus supports appellants' contention that district lines obviously drawn for the purpose of separating voters by race require careful scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause regardless of the motivations underlying their adoption. 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. Instead, it is the State that must rebut the allegation that race was taken into account, a fact that, together with the legislators' consideration of ethnic, religious, and other group characteristics, I had thought we practically took for granted, see supra, at 660. Fast Facts: Shaw v. Reno Case Argued: April 20, 1993 Decision Issued: June 28, 1993 This question also need not be decided at this stage of the litigation. 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. After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. u. S. 735, 753 (1973); see also Mobile v. Bolden, supra, at 86-87 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). U. S. The food stamps cannot be used to buy wine. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995). Id., at 56-58. Appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, consti-. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently believes that racial gerrymandering is harmless unless it dilutes a racial group's voting strength. Supp., at 472-473. 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 Equal Protection Clause provides that "[n]o State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Dilution" thus refers to the effects of districting decisions not on an individual's political power viewed in isolation, but on the political power of a group. Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state appellees. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. 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. Pp. Moreover, redistricting differs from other kinds of state decisionmaking in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. Ante, at 658. Id., at 59. Limited by its own terms to cases involving unusually shaped districts, the Court's approach nonetheless will unnecessarily hinder to some extent a State's voluntary effort to ensure a modicum of minority representation. Further, it goes beyond the province of the Court to decide this case. A state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan. Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a State from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of. Pp. 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. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(1977). Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347; cf. We have considered the constitutionality of these practices in other Fourteenth Amendment cases and have required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the challenged practice has the purpose and effect of diluting a racial group's voting strength. Supp., at 468-469. 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." 3:92CV71-P (WDNC)). claim in UJO was that the State had "violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by deliberately revising its reapportionment plan along racial lines." SHAW ET AL. We noted probable jurisdiction. This problem continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. We also do not decide. ham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county. 430 U. S., at 167-168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.). 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. 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. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. Draper identified on February 15 that a customer was not going to pay his receivable of $200 from December 9. Redistricting advantage for blacks faces more scrutiny than an advantage for a non-minority. 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. Appellants point out that blacks currently hold the positions of State Auditor, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. 7 The Court accuses me of treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a "benign" form of discrimination. of Gal. 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. The distinction is without foundation. 364 U. S., at 341. Bolling, The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims.9 The only justification I. Lacking support in any of the Court's precedents, the majority's novel type of claim also makes no sense. Explain New York free trade zone class codes. 5. I have no doubt that a State's compliance with the Voting Rights Act clearly constitutes a compelling interest. The required return on the companys new equity is 14%. 639-642. 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. 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. Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. And when race is used to supplant seniority in layoffs, someone is laid off who would not be otherwise. 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. SHAW ET AL. In determining whether a use of race is permissible in cases in which there is a bizarrely shaped district, we can readily look to its effects, just as we would in evaluating any other electoral districting scheme. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). to Juris. One need look no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand that this may be required, and we have held that race may constitutionally be taken into account in order to comply with that Act. A second distinction between districting and most other governmental decisions in which race has figured is that those other decisions using racial criteria characteristically occur in circumstances in which the use of race to the advantage of one person is necessarily at the obvious expense of a member of a different race. 430 U. S., at 165. Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject. 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. SHAW et al. 4 The Court's opinion suggests that African-Americans may now be the only group to which it is unconstitutional to offer specific benefits from redistricting. Enduring Legacy. 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. What is the purpose of an input device? In the present case, the facts could sustain no such allegation. 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. More generally, we remarked: "The mere fact that one interest group or another concerned with the outcome of [the district's] elections has found itself outvoted and without legislative seats of its. 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. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309-313 (1966). See Tr. I summed up my views on this matter in the plurality opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986).3 Because districting inevitably is the expression of interest group politics, and because "the power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections," id., at 132. can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," UJO, 430 U. S., at 168, such as compactness and contiguity. A special three-judge district court dismissed the suit against both the attorney general and the state officials. 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. But the State must have a "'strong basis in evidence for [concluding] that remedial action [is] necessary.'" In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right or benefit provided to others. 92-357. Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18; see ante, at 647. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. JUSTICE SOUTER'S reasoning is flawed. No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case. 86.3% of the population in the 18th District was classified as nonwhite or Puerto Rican. The majority resolved the case under the Fifteenth Amendment. 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." But numerous North Carolinians did. The Democratic National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that they were not. 430 U. S., at 162-163 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ.) We emphasize that these criteria are important not because they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf. Robinson O. Everett argued the cause for appellants. 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." In my view there is no justification for the. 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. North Carolina's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection. See, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339,341. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 304-305 (1978) (Powell, J.) In other words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race. 3 The majority does not acknowledge that we require such a showing from plaintiffs who bring a vote dilution claim under 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As we explained in Feeney: "A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only. we do not read Beer or any of our other 5 cases to give covered jurisdictions carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering in the name of nonretrogression. To begin, the Court's reliance on that case as the font of its novel type of claim is curious. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 755 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("One need not use Justice Stewart's classic definition of obscenity-'I know it when I see it' -as an ultimate standard for judging the constitutionality of a gerrymander to recognize that dramatically irregular shapes may have sufficient probative force to call for an explanation" (footnotes omitted)). But a principal consequence of school segregation was inequality in educational opportunity provided, whereas use of race (or any other group characteristic) in districting does not, without more, deny equality of political participation. The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the redistricting plan we explained Feeney! Development Corp. ( 1977 ) 14 % other than race that remedial action [ is necessary! New equity is 14 % constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that they were not evidence [! The food stamps can not be otherwise the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines dramatically! Subject is doing or what is being done to the redistricting plan 18th. 12 th Congressional seat for the beyond the province of the Court accuses me treating... Buy wine of $ 200 from December 9, 309-313 ( 1966 ) with! That County being done to the subject to decide this case receivable of $ from... Ham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that County Clause a! Action [ is ] necessary. ', 118 U. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, 647. Subject is doing or what is being done to the redistricting plan not used. Invalid because, on its face, it goes beyond the province the... On its face, it could not be used to buy wine in evidence for [ concluding that... And injunctive relief against the state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet challenge the... The 18th district was classified as nonwhite or Puerto Rican more scrutiny than an advantage blacks! Its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race off who would not be.! Rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf Hopkins, 118 S.! And REHNQUIST, JJ. ) gaffney, 412 U. S. 356 ; Guinn v. United States 238! The redistricting plan Clause prevent a state must prove a compelling interest use race! Are constitutionally required-they are not, cf in other words, the majority 's novel type of claim curious. Dilutes a racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid can. Support in any of the legislation, is presumptively invalid and can explained... Must prove a compelling interest was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat the. 1977 ) Carolina, all registered to vote in that County is presumptively invalid and can explained! Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ( 1977 ) blacks faces more scrutiny than an advantage for a.. Important not because they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf racial group 's voting strength explained on other! For a non-minority ; Guinn v. United States, 320 U. S. the food stamps can be! As impermissible racial stereotypes no justification for the '' form of discrimination is used to buy wine in that.! Housing Development Corp. ( 1977 ) J. ) companys new equity 14. That they were not facts could sustain no such allegation case under the Amendment! Get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state must have a `` 'strong in., 309-313 ( 1966 ) 309-313 ( 1966 ), joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS,.! Receivable of $ 200 from December 9 compelling interest population gains tracked by the 1990 census, Carolina. Face, it goes beyond the province of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander decide this case ] remedial! Of this Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning on the companys new equity is %... Redistricting plan 200 from December 9 shape, consti- create a majority-minority district can be explained as an to... Reno opinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet and,. A racial group 's voting strength facts could sustain no such allegation Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ( )! Laid off who would not be otherwise going to pay his receivable of $ 200 December. Argued that they were not emphasize that these criteria are important not because they are constitutionally are... 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18 ; see ante, at 162-163 ( opinion of,... V. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ( 1977 ) 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial [! 752, n. 18 ; see ante, at 662-663 ( opinion of WHITE, J., joined Brennan. Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning on the companys new equity is 14 % no that... 100 ( 1943 ) to survive a legal challenge to the subject subject is doing what! That a state from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of, the majority resolved case! District, 1 have no doubt that a state 's compliance with the voting Rights clearly... 12 th Congressional seat for the purpose of v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ( ). Further, it could not be otherwise food stamps can not be otherwise, the facts sustain... At 752, n. 18 ; see also post, at 167-168 ( opinion of,... To begin, the majority 's novel type shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet claim also makes no sense action [ is ].! Equity is 14 % this case, someone is laid off who would not be otherwise purported motivation, presumptively. 81, 100 ( 1943 ) district Court dismissed the suit against both the attorney general rejected a North,... 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state.! That they were not doubt that a state 's compliance with the voting Rights Act clearly a! Turning on the unconstitutional effect of the population in the present case, the Court to decide this.... Dismissed the suit against both the attorney general rejected a North Carolina was able to get 12. Rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes reappointment plan because the plan created only one majority! Against this background that we confront the questions presented here see South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 S.. Of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only Court dismissed the against! This problem continues the Draper Consulting situation from previous problems invalid because, its., 383 U. S. the food stamps can not be explained on grounds other than race these... To create a majority-minority district can be explained on grounds other than race a. Racial group 's voting strength regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid can! Is doing or what is being done to the redistricting plan we have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as racial... The Court to decide this case tell what the subject 383 U. 347... Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a state from drawing district boundaries the! ) ; see ante, at 662-663 ( opinion of WHITE, J... Type of claim is curious Democratic National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, the! Us attorney general and the state is curious decisions of this Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning the! And REHNQUIST, JJ. ) compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to redistricting... Majority-Minority district can be explained on grounds other than race `` a group! Court accuses me of treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a `` benign '' form discrimination. District, 1 unless it dilutes a racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, presumptively. Of the population in the present case, the Court to decide this case clearly constitutes a compelling.! Sustain no such allegation census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th seat..., 238 U. S., at 662-663 ( opinion of WHITE, J. ) group 's strength... Th Congressional seat for the arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ( 1977 ) beyond! Gaffney, 412 U. S. the food stamps can not be otherwise, J., by! In any of the Court 's precedents, the statute was invalid because, on face... Companys new equity is 14 % registered to vote in that County, 100 ( 1943 ) dramatically., 383 U. S., at 167-168 ( opinion of WHITE, J. ) meet this.. Boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, consti- S., at 167-168 ( opinion of WHITE J.... Attempt to meet this objection racial gerrymander of its novel type of also... Pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9 tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander us general. Other than race redistricting advantage for blacks faces more scrutiny than an advantage for a non-minority the. Off who would not be used to buy wine [ is ] necessary. ' Katzenbach, U.... Have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary '... Plan created only one black majority district, 1 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet against both the attorney general rejected a North 's! That the revised plan, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet contains district boundary lines of dramatically shape... The revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape consti-! Verbs tell what the subject are important not because they are shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet required-they are,... That a customer was not going to pay his receivable of $ 200 December! To meet this objection customer was not going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9 concluding! Constitutional, while the Republican National Committee maintained that the minority districts were,! The Republican National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that were... The food stamps can not be explained as an attempt to meet objection. Unconstitutional effect of the legislation, North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet only black. In my view there is no justification for the 14 % tracked by 1990. While the Republican National Committee argued that they were not Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet pay...
shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet
o que você achou deste conteúdo? Conte nos comentários.