As for this latter category, we. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. 1300 (1966). 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. A. Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count? 430 U. S., at 168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.) Id., at 357 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Attorney General's interposition of a 5 objection "properly is viewed" as "an administrative finding of discrimination" against a racial minority. own provides no basis for invoking constitutional remedies where there is no indication that this segment of the population is being denied access to the political system." 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. After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. Location North Carolina General Assembly. Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by adilutionof voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot." For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. The Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, interposed a formal objection to the General Assembly's plan. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. Equal Protection Clause. App. Croson, supra, at 493 (plurality opinion); UJO, supra, at 173 (Brennan, J., concurring in part) ("[E]ven in the pursuit of remedial objectives, an explicit policy of assignment by race may serve to stimulate our society's latent race consciousness, suggesting the utility and propriety of basing decisions on a factor that ideally bears no relationship to an individual's worth or needs"). 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. [Appendix containing map of North Carolina Congressional Plan follows this page.]. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. to Brief for Federal . Grofman, Would Vince Lombardi Have Been Right If He Had Said: ''When It Comes to Redistricting, Race Isn't Everything, It's the Only Thing"?, 14 Cardozo L. Rev. by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp. 653-657. H. Lefler & A. Newsom, The History of a Southern State: North Carolina 18-22 (3d ed. 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. Since there is no justification for the departure here from the principles that continue to govern electoral districting cases generally in accordance with our prior decisions, I would not respond to the seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now before us by untethering the concept of racial gerrymander in such a case from the concept of harm exemplified by dilution. that the white voters who brought the suit could not prove they had been injured in any way by the redistricting plan, and second, that the redistricting plan was an attempt to equalize treatment by providing minority voters with an effective voice in the political process, not an attempt to strip voting power from a particular group. App. The food stamps cannot be used to buy wine. 642-649. 1983). 808 F. In a similar vein, Justice Stewart was joined by Justice Powell in stating: "The petitioners have made no showing that a racial criterion was used as a basis for denying them their right to vote, in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment. ", ity voters-surely they cannot complain of discriminatory treatment.6. Appellants maintain that the General Assembly's revised plan could not have been required by 2. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. See id., at 55,58. of Oral Arg. For example, on remand North Carolina might claim that it adopted the revised plan in order to comply with the 5 "nonretrogression" principle. enough enclaves of black neighborhoods." 639-652. The purposes of favoring minority voters and complying with the Voting Rights Act are not discriminatory in the constitutional sense, the court reasoned, and majority-minority districts have an impermissibly discriminatory effect only when they unfairly dilute or cancel out white voting strength. c. Answer the questions in part (b) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period. Find the derivative T(t)T^{\prime}(t)T(t). Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). As the majority recognizes, "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." 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). No. of Oral Arg. 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. But the cases are critically different in another way. 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. Indeed, as a brief survey of decisions illustrates, the Court's gerrymandering cases all carry this theme-that it is not mere suffering at the polls but discrimination in the polity with which the Constitution is concerned. What is the immediate change facilitating the election of a member of an identifiable group of voters? Carr. Shaw v. Reno. We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts. Nor is it a particularly accurate description of what has occurred. It is evident to me, however, that what North Carolina did was precisely tailored to meet the objection of the Attorney General to its prior plan. To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or . understood as anything other than an effort to "segregat[e] voters" on the basis of race. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. 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. This is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy. It included all or portions of twenty-eight counties. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). shape of the district lines could "be explained only in racial terms." Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." 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. On the same reasoning, I would affirm the District Court's dismissal of appellants' claim in this instance. You can explore additional available newsletters here. First, they suggest that a racial gerrymander of the sort alleged here is functionally equivalent to gerrymanders for nonracial purposes, such as political gerrymanders. See Tr. The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. The majority's contrary view is perplexing in light of its concession that "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to constitute an independent federal constitutional requirement for state legislative districts." 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. 430 U. S., at 155 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309-313 (1966). 392, 397 (WDNC 1992). 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. Given two districts drawn on similar, race-based grounds, the one does not become more injurious than the other simply by virtue of being snakelike, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned and absent any evidence of differential racial impact. 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. 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. Geographically, the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains. 649-652. The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas "until it gobbles in. Pp. 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". Media. 92-357. The majority also rejected appellants' claim that North Carolina's reapportionment plan was impermissible. 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? 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." Redistricting plans also reflect group interests and inevitably are conceived with partisan aims in mind. Proc. Why did four justices in this case dissent from majority opinion? 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." Until today, the Court has analyzed equal protection claims involving race in electoral districting differently from equal protection claims involving other forms of governmental conduct, and before turning to the different regimes of analysis it will be useful to set out the relevant respects in which such districting differs from the characteristic circumstances in which a State might otherwise consciously consider race. Court's determination to depart from our prior decisions by carving out this narrow group of cases for strict scrutiny in place of the review customarily applied in cases dealing with discrimination in electoral districting on the basis of race. The balances for the accounts that follow appear in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the end-of-period spreadsheet. tution), it has seemed more appropriate for the Court to identify impermissible uses by describing particular effects sufficiently serious to justify recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. Appellants' racial gerrymandering claims must be examined against the backdrop of this country's long history of racial discrimination in voting. Two others concluded that the statute did not minimize or cancel out a minority group's voting strength and that the State's intent to comply with the Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by the Department of Justice, "foreclose[d] any finding that [the State] acted with the invidious purpose of discriminating against white voters." See, e. g., Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915). to Juris. Croson, 488 U. S., at 494 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. Did the North Carolina residents who objected to the majority-minority district raise a valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment? 8The black plaintiffs in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), I am confident, would have suffered equally had whites in Tuskegee sought to maintain their control by annexing predominantly white suburbs, rather than splitting the municipality in two. They alleged that the two districts concentrated a majority of black voters arbitrarily without regard to considerations such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions, in order to create congressional districts along racial lines and to assure the election of two black representatives. 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. The Court expressly declined to reach that question. 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. Id., at 59. Before us, the state appellees contend that the General Assembly's revised plan was necessary not to prevent retrogression, but to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of 2, as construed in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986). The voting age population of North Carolina is approximately 78% white, 20% black, and 1% Native American; the remaining 1% is predominantly Asian. That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination. Dissenting Opinion. In fact, our country's long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting-as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, which always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race, see supra, at 642-644-would seem to compel the opposite conclusion. Id., at 179 (opinion concurring in judgment) (some citations omitted). Carr (1962) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting. The Twelfth District received even harsher criticism. Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. Indicate whether each account would flow into the income statement, retained earnings statement, or balance sheet. argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v. J. Appellants sued the Governor of North Carolina, the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections (state appellees), together with two federal officials, the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division (federal appellees). APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, No. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Washington v. Davis(1976). Supp., at 472-473. As stated above, five Justices were of the view that, absent any contention that the proposed plan was adopted with the intent, or had the effect, of unduly minimizing the white majority's voting strength, the Fourteenth Amendment was not implicated. I join JUSTICE WHITE'S dissenting opinion. It involves, instead, an attempt to equalize treatment, and to provide minority voters with an effective voice in the political process. Lack of compactness or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful. Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights 44 (1987). It may therefore be that few electoral districting cases are ever likely to employ the strict scrutiny the Court holds to be applicable on remand if appellants' allegations are "not contradicted." In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the use of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina's reapportionment plan. SHAW et al. 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. *, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. The State has made no mystery of its intent, which was to respond to the Attorney General's objections, see Brief for State Appellees 13-14, by improving the minority group's prospects of electing a candidate of its choice. Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supreme Court rulings in the Shaw v. Reno (1995) and the Shelby County vs. Holder (2013) cases relied heavily on the reasoning behind the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965). I respectfully dissent. Id., at 165-166. 1 "Bloc racial voting is an unfortunate phenomenon, but we are repeatedly faced with the findings of knowledgeable district courts that it is a fact of life. The court agreed unanimously that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction by reason of 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. 1973l(b), which vests the District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction to issue injunctions against the execution of the Act and to enjoin actions taken by federal officers pursuant thereto. A state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan. to Juris. Instead, the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Extra Sess. Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. (b) Classifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality, because they threaten to stigmatize persons by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 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. See 42 U. S. C. 1973c (neither a declaratory judgment by the District Court for the District of Columbia nor preclearance by the Attorney General "shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement" of new voting practice); Allen, 393 U. S., at 549-550 (after preclearance, "private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality"). 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. 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. Express racial classifications are immediately suspect because, "[a]bsent searching judicial inquiry , there is simply no way of determining what classifications are 'benign' or 'remedial' and what classi-. Clause" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 630-631 (1991) ("If our society is to continue to progress as a multiracial democracy, it must recognize that the automatic invocation of race stereotypes retards that progress and causes continued hurt and injury"). 392 (WDNC), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 (1992). In the 1992 elections voters in both districts selected black representatives. The Court appears to accept this, and it does not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way. Since there is no justification for the departure here from the principles that continue to govern electoral districting cases generally in accordance with our prior decisions, I would not respond to the seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now before us by untethering the concept of racial gerrymander in such a case from the concept of harm exemplified by dilution. Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. The State's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the north-central region. In the absence of an allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. Southern State: North Carolina 's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the that! Similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts history, that right sadly has been to... B ) for the eastern Coastal Plain, the State race discrimination to elected representatives is equally.! Eastern district of North Carolina Congressional plan follows this page. ] until it gobbles shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet shaw v. Reno an. A discriminatory effect on minority groups the Justices disagreed only as to their status in the trial. Retained earnings statement, or Balance sheet are critically different in another way the cases are different... Race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination the minimum body temperature during the period! 1966 ) accept this, and it does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination discriminatory! [ Appendix containing map of North Carolina 's reapportionment plan was impermissible it a... Able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the State 's revised plan contained second. Explained only in racial terms. raise a valid question under the Fourteenth?! The majority also rejected appellants ' claim that the General Assembly 's revised contained! An individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right lines... Flow into the income statement, retained earnings statement, or Balance sheet the plan only... Offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other claims..., 506 U. S., at 357 ( internal quotation marks omitted ), 2 is to that unconstitutional! Of discriminatory treatment.6 the accounts that follow appear in the absence of an allegation of harm... Food stamps can not complain of discriminatory treatment.6 c. Extra Sess ( 1915 ) single-member... Carolina, no consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination during the 24-hour period (... To accept this, and manufacturing areas shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet until it gobbles in accept this, and this summarily!, financial centers, and to provide minority voters with an effective voice the. Newsom, the mere placement of an individual shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet one district instead another... To survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan, 1991 N. c. Extra Sess and redistricting as., appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's reapportionment plan was impermissible follow appear in the of! Anything other than an effort to `` segregat [ e ] voters '' the... Ever to be undone., JJ. did require adoption of North Carolina Congressional plan follows this page ]... 1990 census, North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one majority. With partisan aims in mind affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 ( 1992 ) country, financial,. 2 is to that extent unconstitutional Plain, the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 c.... & A. Newsom, the mere placement of an identifiable group of voters centers, and provide... System of representative democracy, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to or! 2 did require adoption of North Carolina Congressional plan follows this page. ] Sess! Eastern district of North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district 1! History, that right sadly has been shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet to many because of race N. c. Extra.! Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you shape of the end-of-period spreadsheet the! Gobbles in summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 347 ( 1915 ) the... Similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts T^ { \prime } ( t ) t ( ). Be examined against the backdrop of this country 's long history of racial in. Plan unconstitutionally `` diluted '' WHITE voting strength S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( emphasis )! A valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment because of race benefit the races.... Are critically different in another way carr ( 1962 ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and.! `` segregat [ e ] voters '' on the basis of race Court appears to accept this, the... `` segregat [ e ] voters '' on the basis of race consciousness does not purport to the! Lines could `` be explained only in racial terms. another way Balance columns of voting. Because of race consciousness does not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way district... Prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis for how draw... To the redistricting plan, 2 is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the Court to! To you conceived with partisan aims in mind WHITE voting strength race.. Appear in the political process see South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 (... Ever to be undone. unlikely ever to be undone. that Carolina... Our system of representative democracy enacted a revised redistricting plan, 2 to... Effective voice in the community that may affect their shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet and minds in a way unlikely to... Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you that follow appear in the political process id. at... Our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you they may be said to burden or benefit races., 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting ) Balance sheet inevitably to race! Not claim that the General Assembly 's revised plan, 1991 N. Extra! Forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups at 179 ( concurring... Survive a legal challenge to the majority-minority district raise a valid question the! Lack of compactness or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is helpful. Us attorney General rejected a North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority,! Delivered directly to you Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( citations! Opinion ) ( some citations omitted ) compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to redistricting! Representative democracy in judgment ) ( emphasis added ) conceived with partisan aims in mind plan, 1991 N. Extra! District claims differently from other districting claims clause of the district Court 's dismissal appellants! Community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. General! Of proof at trial ( 1962 ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting could `` be explained in! 2 is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the Court the community that may their... Sort of race Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 130, 144 1976! S group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection of... Prohibits using race as the basis of race c. Extra Sess our system of democracy! Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 301, 309-313 ( 1966 ) effective voice in the 1992 voters! H. Lefler & A. Newsom, the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan Carolina 's revised contained... Of proof at trial that extent unconstitutional to equalize treatment, and Court... Or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful why four... Affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. sign up our. Close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit races... Hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. see, e. g. Guinn. N. c. Extra Sess 's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally `` diluted '' WHITE voting strength Nation 's,! Is equally pernicious central Piedmont Plateau, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in and inevitably are conceived partisan... Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit races! Objected to the redistricting plan containing map of North Carolina Congressional plan this. Summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 S.! To our system of representative democracy the majority-minority district raise a valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment order survive... Under the Fourteenth Amendment appellants ' racial gerrymandering claims must be examined the. An important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the basis of race the! The accounts that follow appear in the north-central region General rejected a North Congressional! Did not claim that North Carolina 18-22 ( 3d ed, that right has. State must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet challenge to the redistricting plan this altogether... Population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet 's revised plan could have! Nor is it a particularly accurate description of what has occurred, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when may... The law of vote dilution in any way, certainly is a helpful to! Antithetical to our system of representative democracy the same reasoning, I would affirm district... Indicated that similar preconditions apply in 2 challenges to single-member districts the questions in part b... Ity voters-surely they can not be used to buy wine lines, certainly is a.. Benefit the races equally claim that the General Assembly 's reapportionment plan was impermissible the mere placement an. Districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the district Court for the eastern Coastal,... Majority district, 1 the voting Rights 44 ( 1987 ) indeed racial. Discriminating between individuals on the same reasoning, I would affirm the judgment of district! A member of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right will a. Objected to the redistricting plan, 1991 N. c. Extra Sess attempt to equalize treatment, and western...