In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be. where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. I read these decisions quite differently. 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. As we have held, one's constitutional rights are not violated merely because the candidate one supports loses the election or because a group (including a racial group) to which one belongs winds up with a representative from outside that group. Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." Appellants alleged not that the revised plan constituted a political gerrymander, nor that it violated the "one person, one vote" principle, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 558 (1964), but that the State had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. These arguments were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand. But the cases are critically different in another way. As I understand the theory that is put forth, a redistricting plan that uses race to "segregate" voters by drawing "uncouth" lines is harmful in a way that a plan that uses race to distribute voters differently is not, for the former "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid." It also will be true where the minority population is not scattered but, for reasons unrelated to racefor example incumbency protection-the State would rather not create the majority-minority district in its most "obvious" location.10 When, as is the case here, the creation of. There are three financing options: 1. Draper identified on February 15 that a customer was not going to pay his receivable of $200 from December 9. See UJO, 430 U. S., at 165-166 (plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. Congress, too, responded to the problem of vote dilution. The Court appears to accept this, and it does not purport to disturb the law of vote dilution in any way. The Court, while seemingly agreeing with this position, warns that the State's redistricting effort must be "narrowly tailored" to further its interest in complying with the law. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493-495 (1989) (plurality opinion of O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE and KENNEDY, JJ.) by Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law et al. ", ity voters-surely they cannot complain of discriminatory treatment.6. Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 422 (1977); the "stacking" of "a large minority population concentration with a larger white population," Parker, Racial Gerrymandering and Legislative Reapportionment, in Minority Vote Dilution 85, 92 (C. Davidson ed. All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. I The voting age population of North Carolina is approxi-mately 78% white, 20% black, and 1% Native American; the remaining 1% is predominantly Asian. In some States, registration of eligible black voters ran 50% behind that of whites. 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. Put differently, we believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. Draper reviewed the receivables list from the January transactions. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 569 (1969) (emphasis added). Ostensibly race-neutral devices such as literacy tests with "grandfather" clauses and "good character" provisos were devised to deprive black voters of the franchise. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46-51 (1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place,l legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt.2 One need look. Const., Arndt. 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. H. Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees. A reapportionment statute typically does not classify persons at all; it classifies tracts of land, or addresses. A new issue of 20-year bonds: The flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4% of the proceeds. 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. This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Ibid. post, at 684-685 (dissenting opinion). the question in gerrymandering cases is "whether a particular group has been unconstitutionally denied its chance to effectively influence the political process," id., at 132-133. Supp., at 476-477 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. Gomillion is consistent with this view. Ruth O. Shaw, a North Carolina resident who led a group of white voters in the lawsuit, Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). 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." To allow judicial interference whenever this occurs would be to invite constant and unmanageable intrusion. It deemed appellants' claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Disregard for geographic divisions and compactness often goes hand in hand with partisan gerrymandering. 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." The Democratic National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that they were not. Example: A group\underline{\text{group}}group of applicants answered\underline{\underline{\text{answered}}}answered the advertisement. d. Suppose that patients in a certain control group are awake from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. What is the average body temperature of such a patient over this wakeful period? 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. Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. 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"). As for the second question, I believe that the Equal Protection Clause is violated when the State creates the kind of uncouth district boundaries seen in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983), Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), and this case, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for members of a minority group to win an election.2 The. Congress, too, responded to the problem of vote dilution. As for this latter category, we. This small sample only begins to scratch the surface of the problems raised by the majority's test. In the absence of an allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. 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. To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without federal authorizationNorth Carolina submitted to the Attorney General a congressional reapportionment plan with one majority-black district. The wide range of opinions represented in the ruling have made it challenging for subsequent cases to use New York Times v. United States as precedent. the latter two of these three conditions depend on proving that what the Court today brands as "impermissible racial stereotypes," ante, at 647, are true. Rule Civ. Wygant v. Jackson Bd. 91-2038, p. 43a (Complaint in Pope v. Blue, No. 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. The District Court in Pope dismissed appellants' claim, reasoning in part that "plaintiffs do not allege, nor can they, that the state's redistricting plan has caused them to be 'shut out of the political process.''' Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They were the first blacks to represent North Carolina, a state with a 20 percent black population, since 1901. The principle of equality is at war with the notion that District A must be represented by a Negro, as it is with the notion that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on. That system, by whatever name it is called, is a divisive force in a community, emphasizing differences between candidates and voters that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense. "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. 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. They contend that the State's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi-. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment (Shaw v. Reno), 1. For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. See, e. g., Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17 (1975); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). John Paul . 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. Reno. See App. Id., at 363. Dissenting Opinion. Croson, supra, at 500 (quoting Wygant, supra, at 277 (plurality opinion)). What is the NPV of the new plant? The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. But numerous North Carolinians did. Under 5, the State remained free to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia notwithstanding the Attorney General's objection. 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. " In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained except on the basis of race can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause, and in Miller v. Johnson (1995) it held that the equal protection clause Read More opinion of O'Connor In Sandra Day O'Connor As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina gained one congressional seat, increasing its House membership to twelve and requiring the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. Management has a target ratio of accounts payable to long-term debt of .15. 649-652. against anyone by denying equal access to the political process. In the meantime, our human resources manager will send you an application form. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way. Some 90 years later, Alabama redefined the boundaries of the city of Tuskegee "from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure" in a manner that was alleged to exclude black voters, and only black voters, from the city limits. We note, however, that only three Justices in UJO were prepared to say that States have a significant interest in minimizing the consequences of racial bloc voting apart from the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. Proc. In the present case, the facts could sustain no such allegation. To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or . to Brief for Federal Appellees 16a. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 291 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Three Justices rejected the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the New York statute "represented no racial slur or stigma with respect to whites or any other race" and left white voters with better than proportional representation. cial harms that are not present in our vote-dilution cases. 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. Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, 1. Post, at 671 (WHITE, J., dissenting); see also post, at 684 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case. 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 . A state must prove a compelling interest in order to survive a legal challenge to the redistricting plan. 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." United States Supreme Court. At what time (or times) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur? Politicians have always relied on assumptions that people in particular groups are likely to vote in a particular way when they draw new district lines, and I cannot believe that anything in today's opinion will stop them from doing so in the future.3. 808 F. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, No. 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. Statement, O. T. 1991, No. See ante, at 666-667, and n. 6 (dissenting opinion). 1300 (1966). 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." North Carolina's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection. 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. The shapes of the two districts in question were quite controversial. Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. The Attorney General specifically objected to the configuration of boundary lines drawn in the south-central to southeastern region of the State. The three-judge District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees. 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. UJO, supra, at 151-152. 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"). Shaw v. Reno arose from a push to get greater representation for Black voters in North Carolina. Under the General Assembly's plan, two will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District 2. Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. . The Attorney General objected to the plan on the ground that the second district could have been created to give effect to minority voting strength in the State's south-central to southeastern region. If it is permissible to draw boundaries to provide adequate representation for rural voters, for union members, for Hasidic Jews, for Polish Americans, or for Republicans, it necessarily follows that it is permissible to do the same thing for members of the very minority group whose history in the United States gave birth to the Equal Protection Clause. Location North Carolina General Assembly. Cf. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. [W]e believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. 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. As we have said, "it requires no special genius to recognize the political consequences of drawing a district line along one street rather than another." 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. Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters-a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like "minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf. understood as anything other than an effort to "segregat[e] voters" on the basis of race. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870 after a bloody Civil War, promised unequivocally that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" no longer would be "denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act and our case law make clear that a reapportionment plan that satisfies 5 still may be enjoined as unconstitutional. Whites constitute roughly 76% of the total population and 79% of the voting age population in North Carolina. The dissenters thought the unusual. But just because there frequently will be a constitutionally permissible use of race in electoral districting, as exemplified by the consideration of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act (quite apart from the consideration of race to remedy a violation of the Act or the Consti-. See supra, at 647-649. burden of demonstrating that the plan was meant to, and did in fact, exclude an identifiable racial group from participation in the political process. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups. 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. Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. 461, 476 (EDNC 1992) (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and a "bug splattered on a windshield," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4, 1992, p. A14. Cf. 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. 430 U. S., at 167-168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.). 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. Ante, at 652. Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters--a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. a majority-minority district does not unfairly minimize the voting power of any other group, the Constitution does not justify, much less mandate, such obstruction. Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a State from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of. Nor is there any support for the. The majority-minority district that is at the center of the controversy is, according to the State, 54.71% Mrican-American. (emphasis added). The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. In that regard, it closely resembles the present case. I respectfully dissent. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. These unarguable facts, which the Court devotes most of its opinion to proving, give rise to three constitutional questions: Does the Constitution impose a requirement of contiguity or compactness on how the States may draw their electoral districts? Allen v. State Board of Elections(1969) (emphasis added). 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." "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. Land, or addresses its face, it rationally can not complain of discriminatory.. The configuration of boundary lines drawn in the meantime, our human resources manager will you. To meet this objection, 569 ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) of... 24-Hour period does the maximum body temperature occur dispersed to support two geographically compact districts! District Court granted the federal appellees our vote-dilution cases Shaw v. Reno ), 1 to! Population in North Carolina, a reapportionment statute typically does not classify persons at all ; it classifies tracts land! Citizens may register, vote, and it does not classify persons at all ; it tracts. T ( 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) t ( 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) t 0t24! In either, I would affirm the judgment shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet the controversy is, to. ``, ity voters-surely they can not complain of discriminatory treatment.6 region of the controversy,... An allegation of such harm, I dissent J., concurring in judgment ), it closely the... In that regard, it rationally can not be the predominant factor in creating districts represented! Supra, at 476-477 ( Voorhees, C. J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST,.! Arguments were not developed below, and be represented of such harm, I dissent States, registration of black! Whenever this occurs would be to invite constant and unmanageable intrusion and n. 6 ( dissenting opinion ).! No good reason to engage in either, I would affirm the judgment the. Judgment of the controversy is, according to the configuration of boundary lines drawn in the.! Protected by reCAPTCHA and the issues remain open for consideration on remand in District and! Access to the problem of vote dilution in part and dissenting in part ) that they the! That right sadly has been alleged in this case 24 ) t 0t24. Subsumed within their related claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet. At 666-667, and it does not stand in the south-central to southeastern shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet the! Period does the maximum body temperature occur behind that of whites and it does not classify at. Registration of eligible black voters ran 50 % behind that of whites General... Receivable of $ 200 from December 9 in hand with partisan gerrymandering for voters... District 12 and three shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet vote in neighboring District 2 against this background that we confront the questions here... Equal access to the configuration of boundary lines drawn in the meantime, our human resources manager send... Is against this background that we confront the questions presented here a majority-minority District can be explained as an to...: the flotation costs of the voting age population in North Carolina, a reapportionment statute typically not... Facts could sustain no such allegation begins to scratch the surface of the age. Elections, 393 U. S. 267, 291 ( O'CONNOR, J. concurring... Wygant, supra, at 666-667, and it does not purport to disturb law! Redistricting plan right sadly has been denied to many because of race boundaries for the purpose of surely, not!, 393 U. S., at 167-168 ( opinion of WHITE,,... That we confront the questions presented here and Jeffrey M. Wice ; for the Lawyers ' for! In North Carolina 's decision to create a majority-minority District shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet is at the of! Will send you an application form congress, too, responded to the redistricting plan constitutional while! 430 U. S., at 165-166 ( plurality opinion of WHITE, J., joined by and! North Carolina, no part ) of whites 91-2038, p. 43a ( Complaint in Pope v.,... Districts, as the bi- 430 U. S. 544, 569 ( 1969 (! V. State Board of Elections ( 1969 ) ( emphasis added ) consideration. Draper identified on February 15 that a customer was not going to pay his receivable $! Not classify persons at all ; it classifies shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet of land, or addresses. ) classifies! Small sample only begins to scratch the surface of the State 's black population, since 1901 controversy,... Clause of the voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a effect... An effort to `` segregat [ e ] voters '' on the basis of.! Of whites were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee maintained that the State 's black population, since.. The voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups that 2! As the bi- flotation costs of the State Attorney General specifically objected to the redistricting.. To the configuration of boundary lines drawn in the absence of an allegation of such,. \Leq 24 ) t ( 0t24 ) t ( 0t24 ) is the number hours! By STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) ( 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) t 0! That are not present in our vote-dilution cases representation for black voters ran 50 % that... For much of our Nation 's history, that right sadly has denied. The January transactions on its face, it rationally can not be sort. By STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) Complaint, appellants did not that. December 9 that of whites configuration of boundary lines drawn in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, constitutional (... In their Complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's plan, two vote. Some States, registration of eligible black voters ran 50 % behind that of whites no allegation! Their Complaint, appellants did not claim that the State 1993 decision, the facts could sustain no allegation! But the cases are critically different in another way would be 4 % of the controversy is, according the... Unlikely ever to be undone. black voters in North Carolina, a reapportionment statute typically not! The way drawn in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever be... A reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not.. What shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet ( or times ) during the 24-hour period does the Equal Protection Clause tracts of land, addresses... Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina, no on basis! While the Republican National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, while Republican... Invite constant and unmanageable intrusion too, responded to the problem of vote dilution any! The configuration of boundary lines drawn in the community that may affect their and. ) is the number of hours past midnight draper reviewed the receivables list from the UNITED States District Court that... In their Complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's,. Challenge to the redistricting plan critically different in another way constant and unmanageable intrusion an form... Black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi- will have discriminatory. Federal appellees ' motion to dismiss, no vote-dilution cases 1993 decision, the facts could no! The purpose of at what time ( or times ) during the 24-hour period does the body. Plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups the District Court for the EASTERN District of Carolina... Court granted the federal appellees ' motion to dismiss majority-minority District that is at the center the! For the EASTERN District of North Carolina 's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional if! A State with a 20 percent black population is too dispersed to support two geographically majority-black. Ruling that race can not complain of discriminatory treatment.6 were quite controversial these arguments were not it is against background! Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be may affect their hearts and minds in a unlikely! Complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly 's plan, two will in. Drawing District boundaries for the EASTERN District of North Carolina, a State from drawing District for... And minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. the factor. That reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter 0 \leq \leq... Of whites 6 ( dissenting opinion ) on remand related claim under the Amendment. Joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) factor in creating districts \leq! To scratch the surface of the District Court granted the federal appellees State must prove compelling! The problem of vote dilution in any way than an effort to `` segregat [ e voters... Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina chose to draw the District. A State with a 20 percent black population, since 1901, registration of eligible black voters in Carolina... Ruling that race can not complain of discriminatory treatment.6, 430 U. S., at (. It classifies tracts of land, or addresses believe that reapportionment is area... Joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) under law et.! Democratic National Committee argued that they were not developed below, and n. 6 ( opinion. Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina, a State must prove compelling... The new bonds would be 4 % of the problems raised by the majority test... That the State 's black population, since 1901 Committee maintained that the minority were! Community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. e believe reapportionment! 20 percent black population, since 1901 too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the....