decision bush v vera texas

8/18/2019 Decision Bush v Vera Texas

1/93

Search:

BUSH v. VERA

Print this Page

Case BasicsDocket No.

94-805

PetitionerVera

Respondent

Bsh

Conso!idation"a#son et a!. $. Vera et a!.% No. 94-80&

'nited States $. Vera et a!.% No. 94-988

Decided B(Rehn)ist Cort *+994-,005

pinion

5+/ '.S. 95, *+99& rged

1esda(% Dece23er 5% +995 Decided

1hrsda(% ne +% +99& d$ocates

Pa! Bender

*rged the case 6or the 'nited States in 'nited States $. VeraDanie! 7. 1ro(

*rged the case 6or the appe!!ees in a!! cases

Penda D. air *rged the case 6or the appe!!ants in "a#son $. Vera

a$ier gi!ar

*rged the case 6or the appe!!ants in Bsh $. Vera1ags Ci$i! Rights Reapportion2ent

Term:

• +990-+999

o +995

Location: 1eas enera! sse23!(

;acts o6 the Case

http://www.oyez.org/courts/rehnquist/rehn6http://www.justia.us/us/517/952/case.htmlhttp://www.oyez.org/case_calendar/1995-12-05http://www.oyez.org/case_calendar/1996-06-13http://www.oyez.org/advocates/b/p/paul_benderhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/t/d/daniel_e_troyhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/h/p/penda_d_hairhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/a/j/javier_aguilarhttp://www.oyez.org/issues/Civil%20Rightshttp://www.oyez.org/issues/Civil%20Rightshttp://www.oyez.org/issues/civil-rights/reapportionmenthttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1995http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#maphttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#maphttp://www.oyez.org/courts/rehnquist/rehn6http://www.justia.us/us/517/952/case.htmlhttp://www.oyez.org/case_calendar/1995-12-05http://www.oyez.org/case_calendar/1996-06-13http://www.oyez.org/advocates/b/p/paul_benderhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/t/d/daniel_e_troyhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/h/p/penda_d_hairhttp://www.oyez.org/advocates/a/j/javier_aguilarhttp://www.oyez.org/issues/Civil%20Rightshttp://www.oyez.org/issues/civil-rights/reapportionmenthttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1995http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#map


2/93

;o!!o#ing the +990 censs% 1eas p!anned the creation o6 three additiona! congressiona! districts.

;o!!o#ing the redistricting% registered $oters cha!!enged the p!ans as racia! gerr(2andering.

three-

rg2entBsh $. Vera - ra! rg2ent

Conc!sion

Decision: 5 $otes 6or Vera% 4 $ote*s against

Legal provision: 7)a! Protection

?es. @n a 5-to-4 decision% the Cort he!d that the 1eas redistricting p!ans #ere nconstittiona!.Spporting its Astrict scrtin(A approach% the Cort noted that the proposed districts #ere high!(

irreg!ar in shape% that their co2pteried design #as signi6icant!( 2ore sensiti$e to racia! data%and that the( !acked an( se23!ance to pre-eisting race-netra! districts. 1he Cort a!so he!d that

the tota!it( o6 the circ2stances srronding the proposed districts #o!d depri$e 2inorit(

grops o6 e)a! participation in the e!ectora! po!itica! processes. 1hs% the proposed districts$io!ated the Voting Rights cts Ares!tsA test prohi3iting acti$it( that Ares!ts in a denia! or

a3ridg2ent o6 the right o6 an( citien to $ote on accont o6 race or co!or.A ;ina!!(% #ith respect to

proposed district +8% the Cort he!d that 1eas de!i3erate!( designed it to ha2per the !oca!6rican-2erican 2inorit(s a3i!it( to e!ect representati$es o6 their choice. 1his $io!ated the

Voting Rights cts AnonretrogressionA princip!e% prohi3iting state action 6ro2 o3strcting a

2inorit(s a3i!it( to e!ect representati$es o6 their choice.

t

Rehn)ist Connor Sca!ia enned( 1ho2as Ste$ens Soter ins3rg Bre(er

• Sort 3( Vote

• Sort 3( Seniorit(

• Sort 3( @deo!og(

Cite this Page

• E"

• B!eBook

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805/argumenthttp://www.oyez.org/justices/william_h_rehnquisthttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=votehttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=seniorityhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=ideologyhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#mlahttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#bluebookhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805/argumenthttp://www.oyez.org/justices/william_h_rehnquisthttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=votehttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=seniorityhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#sort=ideologyhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#mlahttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805#bluebook


3/93

• Chicago

BUSH v. VERA. 1he (e Pro


4/93


5/93

$. Hays' 5+5 '. S. //% /44-/45. Bt p!ainti66s B!2 and Po#ers% #ho reside in District +8%

p!ainti66s 1ho2as and Vera% #ho reside in District ,9% and p!ainti66 rctt% #ho resides in District

0% ha$e standing to cha!!enge Districts +8%,9% and 0. See% e. g.' &(&$. pp. 95/-958.

,. Districts +8% ,9% and 0 are s3


6/93

*c @nter!ocking Districts +8 and ,9 are a!so s3


7/93

app!ied% the 6act that these districts are not narro#!( tai!ored to co2p!( #ith M , 6orec!oses this

!ine o6 de6ense. Pp. 98+-98,.

*c Creation o6 District +8 *on!( #as not


8/93

95&

pinion o6 CNNR% .

,av&er Agar' Specia! ssistant ttorne( enera! o6 1eas% arged the case 6or appe!!ants in

No. 94-805. Jith hi2 on the 3rie6s #ere a% +ora#es' ttorne( enera!% ,orge Vega' ;irstssistant ttorne( enera!% R&char$ E. 8ray 33 3' and Roger +oore.

Dept( So!icitor enera! Bender arged the case 6or the 'nited States in No. 94-988. Jith hi2

on the 3rie6s #ere So!icitor enera! Da(s% ssistant ttorne( enera! Patrick% @r$ing ".ornstein% and Ste$en . Rosen3a2.

Penda D. air arged the case and 6i!ed 3rie6s 6or appe!!ants in No. 94-80&. Jith her on the

3rie6s #ere 7!aine R. ones% 1heodore E. Sha#% Nor2an ,. Chachkin% ntonia ernande%nthon( 7. Cha$e% Car2en R23at% and "a#rence Bo.

a%&e# E. roy arged the case 6or appe!!ees in a!! cases.

Jith hi2 on the 3rie6 #ere Pa! "o( rd% Bert J Rein% and Eichae! 7. 1oner.t

'S1@C7 CNNR annonced the


9/93

crease% !arge!( in r3an 2inorit( pop!ations% that entit!ed 1eas to three additiona! congressiona!

seats. @n response% and #ith a $ie# to co2p!(ing #ith the Voting Rights ct o6 +9&5 *VR% /9

Stat. 4/% as a2ended% 4, '. S. C. M +9/ et se).% the 1eas "egis!atre pro2!gated aredistricting p!an that% a2ong other things% created District 0% a ne# 2a


10/93

in dra#ing its district !ines%A +#er' 5+5 '. S.% at 9+% and Athe !egis!atre s3ordinated

traditiona! race-netra! districting princip!es ... to racia! considerations%A &$.' at 9+&. See a!so &$.'

at 9,8 *CNNR% .% concrring *strict scrtin( on!( app!ies #here Athe State has re!ied onrace in s3stantia! disregard o6 csto2ar( and traditiona! districting practicesA.

Strict scrtin( does not app!( 2ere!( 3ecase redistricting is per6or2ed #ith consciosness o6race. See Shaw 3' spra' at &4&. Nor does it app!( to a!! cases o6 intentiona! creation o6 2a


11/93

9&0

pinion o6 CNNR% .

and con6or2it( to po!itica! s3di$isions.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +. 1he cort instead 6ond that

Agenera!!(% 1eas has not intentiona!!( disregarded traditiona! districting criteria%A and that on!(one pre-+99+ congressiona! district in 1eas #as co2para3!e in its irreg!arit( and

nonco2pactness to the three cha!!enged districts. 3$.' at +4. 1he cort a!so noted that

Aco2pactness as 2easred 3( an e(e3a!! approach #as 2ch !ess i2portant%A &$.' at ++% n. 9%in the +99+ p!an% pp. +44% than in its predecessor% the +980 1eas congressiona! districting p!an%

&$.' at +8% and that districts #ere especia!!( irreg!ar in shape in the Da!!as and arris Cont(

areas #here the cha!!enged districts are !ocated% see 8&+ ;. Spp.% at ++% n. 9.

1hese 6indings co2port #ith the conc!sions o6 an instrcti$e std( that atte2pted to deter2ine

the re!ati$e co2pactness o6 districts nation#ide in o3


12/93

decision to create the districts no# cha!!enged as 2a


13/93

9&

tricts. Bt% as the District Cort ep!ained% the direct e$idence o6 racia! considerations% cop!ed

#ith the 6act that the co2pter progra2 sed #as signi6icant!( *ore sophisticated #ith respect to

race than #ith respect to other de2ographic data% pro$ides s3stantia! e$idence that it #as racethat !ed to the neg!ect o6 traditiona! districting criteria here. Je 2st there6ore consider #hat ro!e

other 6actors p!a(ed in order to deter2ine #hether race predo2inated.

Se$era! 6actors other than race #ere at #ork in the dra#ing o6 the districts. 1raditiona! districting

criteria #ere not e%t&re#y neg!ected: Districts +8 and ,9 2aintain the integrit( o6 cont( !ines

each o6 the three districts takes its character 6ro2 a principa! cit( and the srronding r3an area

and none o6 the districts is as #ide!( dispersed as the North Caro!ina district he!dnconstittiona! in Shaw 33' a%te' p. 899. *1hese characteristics are% ho#e$er% nre2arka3!e in

the contet o6 !arge% dense!( pop!ated r3an conties. Eore signi6icant!(% the District Cort

6ond that inc23enc( protection in6!enced the redistricting p!an to an nprecedented etent:

AQs enacted in 1eas in +99+% 2an( inc23ent protection 3ondaries sa3otaged traditiona!

redistricting princip!es as the( rotine!( di$ided conties% cities% neigh3orhoods% and regions. ;or the sake o6 2aintaining or #inning seats in the ose o6 Representati$es% Congress2en or

#o!d-3e Congress2en shed hosti!e grops and potentia! opponents 3( 6encing the2 ot o6 their

districts. 1he "egis!atre o3!iging!( car$ed ot districts o6 apparent spporters o6 inc23ents% assggested 3( the inc23ents% and then added appendages to connect their residences to those

districts. 1he 6ina! res!t see2s not one in #hich the peop!e se!ect their representati$es% 3t in

#hich the representati$es ha$e se!ected the peop!e.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +4 *citations and

6ootnotes o2itted.

9&4

pinion o6 CNNR% .

See a!so &$.' at ++/-++8 *descri3ing speci6ic e$idence o6 inc23enc( protection e66orts

state#ide. 1his 6inding recei$es in6erentia! spport 6ro2 the 6act that a!! 3t one o6 1eas ,/

inc23ents #on in the +99, e!ections. See &$.' at ++8. nd the appe!!ants point to e$idence thatin 2an( cases% race corre!ates strong!( #ith 2ani6estations o6 co22nit( o6 interest *6or

ea2p!e% shared 3roadcast and print 2edia% p3!ic transport in6rastrctre% and instittions sch

as schoo!s and chrches and #ith the po!itica! data that are $ita! to inc23enc( protectione66orts% raising the possi3i!it( that corre!ations 3et#een racia! de2ographics and district !ines

2a( 3e ep!ica3!e in ter2s o6 nonracia! 2oti$ations. ;or ea2p!e% a 6inding 3( a district cort

that district !ines #ere dra#n in part on the 3asis o6 e$idence *other than racia! data o6 #hereco22nities o6 interest eisted 2ight #eaken a p!ainti66s c!ai2 that race predo2inated in the

dra#ing o6 district !ines. C6. post' at +049 *S'17R% .% dissenting *recogniing the !egiti2ate

ro!e o6 co22nities o6 interest in or s(ste2 o6 representati$e de2ocrac(.


14/93

Strict scrtin( #o!d not 3e appropriate i6 race-netra!% traditiona! districting considerations

predo2inated o$er racia! ones. Je ha$e not s3


15/93

pinion o6 CNNR% .

a!so reaches ot to c!ai2 a2i!ton Park% an a66!ent 6rican-2erican neigh3orhood srronded 3( #hites. Part o6 the district rns a!ong 1rinit( Ri$er 3otto2% sing it to connect dispersed

2inorit( pop!ation. N2eros Q$oter ta3!ation districts #ere sp!it in order to achie$e the

pop!ation 2i re)ired 6or the district.

A ... @t is at !east ,5 2i!es #ide and 0 2i!es !ong.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +/-+8.

See a!so ppendi to this opinion *ot!ine o6 District 0.

ppe!!ants do not den( that District 0 sho#s s3stantia! disregard 6or the traditiona! districting

princip!es o6 co2pactness and reg!arit(% or that the redistricters prsed n#a$ering!( theo3


16/93

$oter ta3!ation district or cont( !ines. See pp. +9 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +8. 1he District Cort

6ond that AQ#hi!e 2inorit( $oters did not o3


17/93

9&9

po!itica! participation in or e66orts to e!i2inate n


18/93

2etrop!e area 3( spreading the B!ack pop!ation to increase the De2ocratic part( inde in

those areas.A 3$.' at +,, *)oting P!ainti66 7h. &7&.

1his is not to sa( that the direct e$idence o6 the districters intent sho#ed race to 3e the so!e

6actor considered. s s1@C7 S17V7NS notes% post' at +0,4-+0,5% nn. ,-,4% state o66icia!s

c!ai2s ha$e changed as their interests ha$e changed. @n the prior po!itica! gerr(2andering sitand to the Depart2ent o6 stice% the( asserted that race predo2inated. @n this sit% their

testi2on( #as that po!itica! considerations predo2inated. 1hese inconsistent state2ents 2st 3e

$ie#ed in !ight o6 their ad$ersaria! contet. Bt sch )estions o6 credi3i!it( are 2atters 6or theDistrict Cort% and #e si2p!( di66er 6ro2 the dissenters in or reading o6 the record #hen the(

6ind inspporta3!e the District Corts re!iance on the States o#n state2ents indicating the

i2portance o6 race% see post' at +0,4-+0,5% nn. ,-,4% +0% n. + *opinion o6 S17V7NS% ..

;ina!!(% and 2ost signi6icant!(% the o3


19/93

;or the sa2e reason% #e dec!ine to de3ate the dissent on e$er( 6acta! nance on #hich it

di$erges 6ro2 the District Corts% and or% $ie#. Bt t#o o6 its speci6ic c!ai2s a3ot District 02erit a response. ;irst% the dissent asserts that AQa co2parison o6 the +99, precinct res!ts #ith a

depiction o6 the proportion o6 3!ack pop!ation in each censs 3!ock re$ea!s that De2ocratic-

!eaning precincts co$er a 6ar greater area Qo6 District 0

9/,

pinion o6 CNNR% .

1he co23ination o6 these 6actors co2pe!s s to agree #ith the District Cort that Athe contors

o6 Congressiona! District 0 are nep!aina3!e in ter2s other than race.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +9. @t

is tre that District 0 does not e$ince a consistent% sing!e-2inded e66ort to AsegregateA $oters on

the 3asis o6 race% post' at +0, *S17V7NS% .% dissenting% and does not represent Aapartheid%A post' at +054% +0/4 *S'17R% .% dissenting. Bt the 6act that racia! data #ere sed in co2p!e

#a(s% and 6or 2!tip!e o3


20/93

9/

as a pro( to protect the po!itica! 6ortnes o6 ad


21/93

traditiona! 6or2s o6 po!itica! acti$it(. Ca2paigners seeking to $isit their constitents Ahad to

carr( a 2ap to identi6( the district !ines% 3ecase so o6ten the 3orders #o!d 2o$e 6ro2 3!ock to

3!ockA $oters Adid not kno# the candidates rnning 6or o66iceA 3ecase the( did not kno# #hichdistrict the( !i$ed in. 3(&$. @n !ight o6 1eas re)ire2ent that $oting 3e arranged 3( precinct% #ith

each precinct representing a co22nit( that shares !oca!% state% and 6edera! representati$es% it

a!so created ad2inistrati$e headaches 6or !oca! e!ection o66icia!s:

A1he e66ect o6 sp!itting doens o6 Q$oter ta3!ation districts to create Districts +8 and ,9 #as an

e!ectora! night2are. arris Cont( esti2ated that it 2st increase its n23er o6 precincts 6ro2&/, to +%,,5 to acco22odate the ne# Congressiona! 3ondaries. Po!!ing p!aces% 3a!!ot 6or2s%

and the n23er o6 e!ection e2p!o(ees are corresponding!( 2!tip!ied. Voters #ere thrst into

ne# and n6a2i!iar precinct a!ign2ents% a 6e# #ith pop!ations as !o# as ,0 $oters.A 3$.' at

+,5.

See a!so pp. ++9-+,/ *!etter 6ro2 !oca! o66icia! setting 6orth ad2inistrati$e pro3!e2s and

con6!ict #ith !oca! districting

9/5

traditions &$.' at +4/ *2ap sho#ing sp!itting o6 cit( !i2its &$.' at +,8% P!ainti66s 7h. &7!%ttach2ent *2ap i!!strating sp!itting o6 $oting precincts.

s #ith District 0% appe!!ants addced e$idence that inc23enc( protection p!a(ed a ro!e in

deter2ining the 3iarre district !ines. 1he District Cort 6ond that one constraint on the shape o6 District ,9 #as the ri$a! a23itions o6 its t#o A6nctiona! inc23ents%A #ho distorted its

3ondaries in an e66ort to inc!de !arger areas o6 their eisting state !egis!ati$e constitencies.

8&+ ;. Spp.% at +40. Bt the District Corts 6indings a2p!( de2onstrate that sch in6!ences#ere o$er#he!2ed in the deter2ination o6 the districts 3iarre shapes 3( the States e66orts to

2ai2ie racia! di$isions. 1he States VR M 5 s32ission ep!ains that the 3iarre

con6igration o6 Districts +8 and ,9 Ares!tQs in the 2ai2iation o6 2inorit( $oting strengthA inarris Cont(% pp. ++0% corro3orating the District Corts 6inding that AQin the ear!iest stages o6

the Congressiona! redistricting process% state De2ocratic and Rep3!ican !eaders ra!!ied 3ehind

the idea o6 creating a ne# ispanic sa6e seat in arris Cont( #hi!e preser$ing the sa6e 6rican-

2erican seat in District +8.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +,4. State o66icia!s testi6ied that Ait #as partic!ar!( necessar( to sp!it Q$oter ta3!ation districts in order to captre pockets o6 ispanic

residentsA 6or District ,9% and that a &+ ispanic pop!ation in that districtnot a 2ere 2a


22/93

9/&

pinion o6 CNNR% .

trict Corts conc!sion is% there6ore% inescapa3!e: ABecase Districts +8 and ,9 are 6or2ed in

tter disregard 6or traditiona! redistricting criteria and 3ecase their shapes are !ti2ate!(

nep!aina3!e on gronds other than the racia! )otas esta3!ished 6or those districts% the( are the prodct o6 Qpres2pti$e!( nconstittiona! racia! gerr(2andering.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +4+.

@@@

a$ing conc!ded that strict scrtin( app!ies% #e 2st deter2ine #hether the racia!

c!assi6ications e23odied in an( o6 the three districts are narro#!( tai!ored to 6rther a co2pe!!ing

state interest. ppe!!ants point to three co2pe!!ing interests: the interest in a$oiding !ia3i!it(

nder the Ares!tsA test o6 VR M ,*3% the interest in re2ed(ing past and present racia!discri2ination% and the AnonretrogressionA princip!e o6 VR M 5 *6or District +8 on!(. Je

consider the2 in trn.

Section ,*a o6 the VR prohi3its the i2position o6 an( e!ectora! practice or procedre that

Ares!ts in a denia! or a3ridge2ent o6 the right o6 an( citien ... to $ote on accont o6 race or

co!or.A @n +98,% Congress a2ended the VR 3( changing the !angage o6 M ,*a and adding M

,*3% #hich pro$ides a Ares!tsA test 6or $io!ation o6 M ,*a. $io!ation eists i6%

A3ased on the tota!it( o6 circ2stances% it is sho#n that the po!itica! processes !eading to

no2ination or e!ection in the State or po!itica! s3di$ision are not e)a!!( open to participation 3( 2e23ers o6 a c!ass o6 citiens protected 3( s3section *a o6 this section in that its 2e23ers

ha$e !ess opportnit( than other 2e23ers o6 the e!ectorate to participate in the po!itica! process

and to e!ect representati$es o6 their choice.A 4, '. S. C. M +9/*3.

9//

ppe!!ants contend that creation o6 each o6 the three 2a


23/93

Shaw @% 509 '. S.% at &5& *interna! )otation 2arks o2itted% 6or conc!ding that creation o6 a

2a


24/93


25/93

1he 'nited States takes a 2ore 2oderate position% accepting that in the contet o6 narro#

tai!oring% Aconsideration 2st 3e gi$en to the etent to #hich the districts dra#n 3( a State

s3stantia!!( depart 6ro2 its csto2ar( redistricting practices%A Brie6 6or 'nited States &% 3tasserting that inso6ar as 3iarreness and nonco2pactness are necessar( to achie$e the States

co2pe!!ing interest in co2p!iance #ith M , A#hi!e si2!taneos!( achie$ing other !egiti2ate

redistricting goa!s%A &$.' at /% sch as inc23enc( protection% the narro#!( tai!oring re)ire2entis satis6ied. Si2i!ar!(% 'S1@C7 S17V7NS dissent arges that Anonco2pact districts sho!d ...

3e a per2issi3!e 2ethod o6 a$oiding $io!ations o6 QM ,.A ost' at +04.

1hese arg2ents cannot sa$e the districts 3e6ore s. 1he "a#son appe!!ants 2isinterpret +#er:

District shape is not irre!e$ant to the narro# tai!oring in)ir(. r discssion in +#er ser$ed

on!( to e2phasie that the !ti2ate constittiona! $a!es at stake in$o!$e the har2s cased 3( the

se o6 n


26/93

$io!ations o6 the Constittion and o6 the VR. See% e. g.' 7#&a*s $. a##as' /4 ;. Spp. ++/

*ND 1e. 19904 7h&te $. Regester' 4+, '. S. /55 *+9/ erry $. A$a*s' 45 '. S. 4&+ *+95

S*&th $. A##wr&ght' ,+ '. S. &49 *+944 &Fo% $. 6o%$o%' ,8& '. S. / *+9, &Fo% $.

98,

pinion o6 CNNR% .

Her%$o%' ,/ '. S. 5& *+9,/ see a!so 8&+ ;. Spp.% at ++/ *3ecase o6 its histor( o6 o66icia!

discri2ination% 1eas 3eca2e a co$ered


27/93

2erican $oters had scceeded in se!ecting representati$es o6 their choice% a!! o6 #ho2 #ere

6rican-2ericans.

1he pro3!e2 #ith the States arg2ent is that it seeks to


28/93

s to the dangers o6


29/93

nie that the ato2atic in$ocation o6 race stereot(pes retards that progress and cases contined

hrt and in


30/93

988

pppendi B to opinion o6 CNNR% .

PP7ND@I B 1 P@N@N ; CNNR% .

17IS CNR7SS@N" D@S1R@C1 +8

989

PP7ND@I C 1 P@N@N ; CNNR% .

17IS CNR7SS@N" D@S1R@C1 ,9


31/93


32/93

$. E#ect&o%s B$.' /9 ;. Spp. 859% 8&9 *JD Jis. +99, 7es#ey $. 6o##&%s' atze%(ach' 8

'. S. 0+ *+9&& *pho!ding the origina! VR as a $a!id eercise o6 Congress po#er nder M ,

o6 the ;i6teenth 2end2ent ;##ove $. >#tz%&c' 448 '. S. 448% 4// *+980 2>atze%(ach andits sccessors interpreting M , o6 the ;i6teenth 2end2ent Acon6ir2 that congressiona! athorit(

etends 3e(ond the prohi3ition o6 prpose6! discri2ination to enco2pass state action that has

discri2inator( i2pact perpetating the e66ects o6 past discri2inationA 7h&te $. A#a(a*a' 8&/ ;.

Spp. +5+9% +549 *ED !a. +994 *the res!ts test Ahas not 3een he!d nconstittiona! andco2p!(ing #ith it re2ains a strong state interestA% $acated and re2anded on other gronds% /4

;.d +058% +0&9 *C!! +99& *noting that ASection , #as enacted to en6orce the ;i6teenth

2end2ents prohi3ition against den(ing a citien the right to $ote on accont o6 race A.

gainst this 3ackgrond% it #o!d 3e irresponsi3!e 6or a State to disregard the M , res!ts test.

1he Spre2ac( C!ase o3!iges the States to co2p!( #ith a!! constittiona!

99,

eercises o6 Congress po#er. See '. S. Const.% rt. V@% c!. ,. Stattes are pres2ed

constittiona!% see% e. g.' ;a&r 3ank $. U%&te$ States' +8+ '. S. ,8% ,85 *+90+% and that pres2ption appears strong here in !ight o6 the #eight o6 athorit( a66ir2ing the res!ts tests

constittiona!it(. @n addition% 6nda2enta! concerns o6 6edera!is2 2andate that States 3e gi$en

so2e !ee#a( so that the( are not Atrapped 3et#een the co2peting haards o6 !ia3i!it(.A 7yga%t $. ,acso% B$. o? E$.' 4/& '. S. ,&/% ,9+ *+98& *CNNR% .% concrring. Je sho!d a!!o#

States to ass2e the constittiona!it( o6 M , o6 the VR% inc!ding the +98, a2end2ents.

1his conc!sion is 3o!stered 3( concerns o6 respect 6or the athorit( o6 Congress nder the

Reconstrction 2end2ents. See 6&ty o? Ro*e $. U%&te$ States' 44& '. S. +5&% +/9 *+980. 1he

res!ts test o6 M , is an i2portant part o6 the apparats chosen 3( Congress to e66ectate this

Nations co22it2ent Ato con6ront its conscience and 6!6i!! the garantee o6 the ConstittionA#ith respect to e)a!it( in $oting. S. Rep. No. 9/-4+/% p. 4 *+98,. Congress considered the test

Anecessar( and appropriate to ensre 6!! protection o6 the ;orteenth and ;i6teenth 2end2ents

rights.A 3$.' at ,/. @t 3e!ie$ed that #ithot the res!ts test% nothing co!d 3e done a3otAo$er#he!2ing e$idence o6 ne)a! access to the e!ectora! s(ste2%A &$.' at ,&% or a3ot A$oting

practices and procedres Qthat perpetate the e66ects o6 past prpose6! discri2ination%A &$.' at

40. nd it 6onded those 3e!ie6s on the sad rea!it( that Athere sti!! are so2e co22nities in or Nation #here racia! po!itics do do2inate the e!ectora! process.A 3$.' at . Respect 6or those

!egis!ati$e conc!sions 2andates that the M , res!ts test 3e accepted and app!ied n!ess and nti!

crrent !o#er cort precedent is re$ersed and it is he!d nconstittiona!.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/791/1255/http://supreme.justia.com/us/469/1002/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/383/301/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/383/301/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/448/448/case.htmlhttp://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/74/1058/http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/74/1058/http://supreme.justia.com/us/181/283/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/476/267/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/446/156/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/446/156/case.htmlhttp://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/791/1255/http://supreme.justia.com/us/469/1002/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/383/301/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/383/301/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/448/448/case.htmlhttp://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/74/1058/http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/74/1058/http://supreme.justia.com/us/181/283/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/476/267/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/446/156/case.html


33/93


34/93

2a


35/93

;orteenth 2end2ent re)ires s to !ook #ith sspicion on the ecessi$e se o6 racia!

considerations 3( the go$ern2ent. Bt @ 3e!ie$e that the States% p!a(ing a pri2ar( ro!e% and the

corts% in their secondar( ro!e% are capa3!e o6 distingishing the appropriate and reasona3!(necessar( ses o6 race 6ro2 its n


36/93

1he 6irst 8&%g#es condition re6ers to the co2pactness o6 the 2inorit( pop!ation% not to the

co2pactness o6 the contested district. s the p!ra!it( o3ser$es: A@6% 3ecase o6 the dispersion o6the 2inorit( pop!ation% a reasona3!( co2pact 2a


37/93

the States c!ai2 that those three districts #ere narro#!( tai!ored. Shaw 33' a%te' at 9+5-9+8. *@n

this respect% @ disagree #ith the apparent sggestion in 'S1@C7 CNNRS separate

concrrence that a cort sho!d condct a second predo2inant-6actor in)ir( in deciding #hether a district #as narro#!( tai!ored% see a%te' at 994. 1here is nothing in

999

the p!ra!it( opinion or an( opinion o6 the Cort to spport that proposition. 1he si2p!e )estion

is #hether the race3ased districting #as reasona3!( necessar( to ser$e a co2pe!!ing interest.

Jhi!e M , does not re)ire a nonco2pact 2a


38/93

&4/. Jhi!e #e ha$e recognied the e$identiar( di66ic!t( o6 pro$ing that a redistricting p!an is% in

6act% a racia! gerr(2ander% see +#er' spra' at 9+&-9+/ Shaw 3' 509 '. S.% at &4&-&4/% #e ha$e

ne$er sggested that a racia! gerr(2ander is s3


39/93

necessari!( s3ordinated *and race necessari!( predo2inates% and the !egis!atre has c!assi6ied

persons on the 3asis o6 race. 1he res!ting redistricting 2st 3e $ie#ed as a racia! gerr(2ander.

r s22ar( a66ir2ance o6 e 7&tt $. 7so%' 85& ;. Spp. +409 *7D Ca!. +994% s22ari!(

a66d in part and dis2d in part% 5+5 '. S. ++/0 *+995% cannot


40/93


41/93

Second% e$en i6 @ conc!ded that these districts 6ai!ed an appropriate app!ication o6 this sti!!-

de$e!oping !a# to appropriate!( read 6acts% @ #o!d not pho!d the District Cort decision. 1he

decisions issed toda( ser$e 2ere!( to rein-

+ 1he District Cort recognied% 3t erroneos!( ignored% the o$er#he!2ing #eight o6 e$idence

de2onstrating that po!itica! considerations do2inated the shaping o6 1eas congressiona!districts. See Vera $. R&char$s' 8&+ ;. Spp. +04% ++% +4-+& *SD 1e. +994 &%?ra' at

+0,/-+0,9.

, Becase @ 3e!ie$e that po!itica! gerr(2anders are 2ore o3archer $. aggett' 4&, '. S. /,5%

/48 *+98 *S17V7NS% .% concrring av&s $. Ba%$e*er' 4/8 '. S. +09% +&+-+&,% +&& *+98&

*Po#e!!% .% concrring in part and dissenting in part% @ a2 not entire!( ns(2pathetic to theCorts ho!ding. @ 3e!ie$e% ho#e$er% that the e$i!s o6 po!itica! gerr(2andering sho!d 3e

con6ronted direct!(% rather than throgh the racespeci6ic approach that the Cort has taken in

recent (ears. See a!so &%?ra' at +08-+040.

+005

6orce 2( con$iction that the Cort has% #ith its Aana!(tica!!( distinctA


42/93

*despite #inning ,/ o6 0 districts. 2erica Votes ,0: and3ook o6 Conte2porar( 2erican

7!ection Statistics 4/4 *R. Sca22on H . Eci!!i$ra( eds. +99.

4 1hen-State Senator 6ro2 Da!!as% 7ddie Bernice ohnson% #ho #as chair o6 the Senate

S3co22ittee on Congressiona! Districts% 2ane$ered to constrct District 0 in a 2anner that

#o!d ensre her e!ection. 8&+

+00&

@t #as not eas( 6or the State to achie$e these res!ts #hi!e si2!taneos!( garanteeing that each

district enc!osed the residence o6 its inc23ent% contained the sa2e n23er o6 peop!e% andco2p!ied #ith other 6edera! and state districting re)ire2ents. Ech o6 Da!!as and oston% 6or

ea2p!e% #as a!read( represented in Congress 3( De2ocrats% and creating ne# De2ocratic

districts in each cit( #hi!e ensring po!itica!!( sa6e seats 6or sitting Representati$es re)ired

signi6icant po!itica! gerr(2andering. 1his task #as aided 3( techno!ogica! and in6or2ationa!ad$ances that a!!o#ed the State to ad


43/93

cra(-)i!t o6 districtsA that 3ore !itt!e rese23!ance to Athe #ork o6 p3!ic-spirited

representati$es.A Vera $. R&char$s' 8&+ ;. Spp. +04% +09 *SD 1e. +994 see% e. g.'ppendies -D.

@t is c!ear that race a!so p!a(ed a ro!e in 1eas redistricting decisions. ccording to the +990Censs% 1eas contained +&%98&%5+0 residents% o6 #ho2 ,,.5 #ere o6 ispanic origin% and

++.& #ere non-ispanic 6rican-2erican. 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +++. 'nder the pre-+990

districting sche2e% 1eas ,/ -2e23er de!egation inc!ded 6or ispanics and one 6rican-2erican. @n arris Cont(% a concentrated ispanic co22nit( #as di$ided a2ong se$era!

2a


44/93

Je ha$e traditiona!!( app!ied strict scrtin( to state action that discri2inates on the 3asis o6 race.

Prior to Shaw 3' ho#e$er% #e did so on!( in cases in #hich that discri2ination har2ed an

indi$ida! or set o6 indi$ida!s 3ecase o6 their race. @n contrast% the har2 identi6ied in Shaw 3and its progen( is 2ch 2ore di66se. See Shaw 33' a%te' at 9,+9,5 *S17V7NS% .% dissenting.

Racia! gerr(2andering o6 the sort 3eing addressed in these cases is Adiscri2inationA on!( in the

sense that the !ines are dra#n 3ased on race% not in the sense that har2 is i2posed on speci6ic persons on accont o6 their race. A%te' at 9,-9,4 *S17V7NS% .% dissenting.

#are o6 this distinction% a 2a


45/93

concrring in


46/93

+0++

+&-+/ *+98& *S17V7NS% .% dissenting Rege%ts o? U%&v. o? 8a#. $. Bae' 48 '. S. ,&5% ,0 *+9/8. Jhi!e the Cort insisted in Shaw 3 that racia! c!assi6ications o6 this sort in


47/93

Aine$ita3!( has sharp po!itica! i2pact.A 7h&te $. 7e&ser' 4+, '. S. /8% /95/9& *+9/. @n these

circ2stances% AQrare!( can it 3e said that a !egis!atre ... operating nder a 3road 2andate 2ade

a decision 2oti$ated so!e!( 3( a sing!e concern% or e$en that a partic!ar prpose #as thedo2inant or pri2ar( one. @n 6act% it is 3ecase !egis!ators ... are proper!( concerned #ith

3a!ancing n2eros co2peting considerations that corts re6rain 6ro2 re$ie#ing the 2erits o6

their decisions% a3sent a sho#ing o6 ar3itrariness or irrationa!it(.A Ar#&%gto% He&ghts $. +etropo#&ta% Hos&%g eve#op*e%t 6orp.' 4,9 '. S. ,5,% ,&5 *+9// *6ootnote o2itted see

a!so E$war$s $. Ag#ar$' 48, '. S. 5/8% &&-&9 *+98/ *SC"@% .% dissenting Shaw 33'

a%te' at 940 *S17V7NS% .% dissenting.

Not on!( is this a case in #hich a !egis!atre is operating nder a A3road 2andate%A 3t other

6actors #eigh in 6a$or o6 de6erence as #e!!. ;irst% the inherent!( po!itica! process o6 redistricting

is as 2ch at the core o6 state so$ereignt( as an( other. Second% the A2oti$eA #ith #hich #e areconcerned is not per se i2per2issi3!e. *;or that reason% this !itigation is $er( di66erent 6ro2

r&ce 7aterhose $. Hop&%s' 490 '. S. ,,8 *+989% and Ar#&%gto% He&ghts $. +etropo#&ta%

Hos&%g eve#op*e%t 6orp.' 4,9 '. S. ,5, *+9//% in #hich the p!ainti66s a!!eged that the

de6endants action #as 2oti$ated 3( an intent to har2 indi$ida!s 3ecase o6 their stats as2e23ers o6 a partic!ar grop. Jhere there is Aproo6 that a discri2inator( prpose has 3een a

2oti$ating 6actor in the decision%A the A


48/93

/5. Pop!ation $ariances are not per2issi3!e e$enA i6 the( necessari!( res!t 6ro2 a States

atte2pt to a$oid 6rag2enting po!itica! s3di$isions 3( dra#ing congressiona! district !ines a!ong

eisting ... po!itica! s3di$ision 3ondaries. 7h&te' 4+, '. S.% at /9+ *citing >&rpatr&c $. re&s#er' 94 '. S. 5,&% 5-54 *+9&9. 1he !egis!atre% there6ore% nderstanda3!( 6e!t

co2pe!!ed to achie$e 2athe2atica! e)a!it( regard!ess o6 other concerns. Rather srprising!(%

the( #ere a3!e to do so: 7$er( one o6 1eas 0 congressiona! districts contains precise!(5&&%,+/ persons. 6 corse% this precision co!d not ha$e 3een acco2p!ished #ithot 3reaking

apart conties% cities% neigh3orhoods% and e$en pre-eisting $oting precincts.

+0+4

than in Da!!as District 0 #here% at the $er( !east% it is c!ear that race #as %ot sch an o$erriding

6actor.

@V

1he p!ra!it( !ists se$era! considerations #hich% #hen taken in co23ination% !ead it to conc!dethat race% and no other case% #as the predo2inant 6actor in6!encing District 0s con6igration.

;irst% there is the shape itse!6. Second% there is e$idence that the districts #ere intentiona!!(

dra#n #ith consciosness o6 race in an e66ort to co2p!( #ith the Voting Rights ct. 1hird% the p!ra!it( dis2isses t#o racenetra! considerations *co22nities o6 interest and inc23enc(

protection that appe!!ants ad$anced as race-netra! considerations that !ed to the odd shape o6

the districts. ;ina!!(% the p!ra!it( conc!des that race #as i2per2issi3!( sed as a pro( 6or

po!itica! a66i!iation dring the corse o6 redistricting. @n 2( opinion% an appropriate reading o6the record de2onstrates that none o6 these 6actors-either sing!( or in co23ination-sggests that

racia! considerations As3ordinatedA race-netra! districting princip!es. @ discss each in trn.

Biarre Shape

s noted% spra' at +00% and n. &% 1eas "egis!atre conc!ded that it #o!d add a ne# districtto Da!!as Cont( that #o!d incorporate the rapid!( gro#ing 2inorit( co22nities in Soth

Da!!as. 1o do so% the ne# district #o!d ha$e to 6it into the eisting districts: Be6ore redistricting%

2ost o6 sothern Da!!as Cont( *inc!ding the 6rican-2erican co22nities in Soth Da!!as

#as di$ided 3et#een Districts 5 and ,4% represented 3( De2ocratic Representati$es Br(ant and;rost% respecti$e!(. 1he 2idd!e o6 the northern section o6 the cont( #as di$ided 3et#een

Districts and ,&% 3oth represented 3( Rep3!icans.

1hen-State Senator ohnson 3egan the redistricting process 3( proposing a co2pact% De2ocratic%

2a


49/93

district enco2passing a!! o6 Soth Da!!as. See pp. +9 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +,+% n. ,,.

Representati$es Br(ant and ;rost o3


50/93

Rep3!ican inc23ents in this 2anner% District 0 skirted these co22nities on the #est% and

then cr$ed east% picking p co22nities on either side o6 the regions 2a


51/93

s)are 2i!e. See '. S. Dept. o6 Co22erce% Brea o6 the Censs% Pop!ation and osing

Characteristics 6or Congressiona! Districts o6 the +0d Congress: 1eas 40-44 *;e3. +99. @6

enogh e2pt( !and #ere added to these districts that the( 2atched the sparse densities o6 rra!districts *sch as District ,8% #hich #as phe!d 3( the District Cort% their trns #o!d not

appear so sharp% and the open space% #ithot its de2ographic i2p!ications% co!d s2ooth the

deepest o6 the districts notches.

+& s De2ocratic co22nities #ere identi6ied% the( had to 3e connected #ith the core o6 the

district. !thogh 1eas has no state stattor( or constittiona! re)ire2ent to that e66ect% state!egis!ators agreed that each o6 the 0 districts sho!d 3e entire!( contigos% per2itting an(

candidate% 2ap in hand% to $isit e$er( residence in her district #ithot !ea$ing it.

+0+8

a3!( spport their opponents. C6. 8a??%ey $. 6**&%gs' 4+, '. S. /5% /5 *+9/ *AQJhenQpo!itica! pro6i!es are o$er!aid on a censs 2ap% it re)ires no specia! genis to recognie the

po!itica! conse)ences o6 dra#ing a district !ine a!ong one street rather than anotherA.+/

1he care6! gerr(2andering condcted 3( the 1eas "egis!atre nder the #atch6! e(e o6

ohnson and her sta66 #as a sccess not on!( on a district#ide !e$e! *ohnson #as e!ected #itho$er /0 o6 the $ote in 3oth +99, and +994% 3t on a precinct !e$e!. Jhi!e the pre-+990

precincts in the hea$i!( Rep3!ican North Da!!as ga$e !itt!e reason 6or a De2ocratic inc23ent

to hope 6or 2ch spport% see States 7h. 9B *2aps o6 Da!!as and Co!!in Conties #ith +990

e!ection inde res!ts sho#ing on!( a 6e# De2ocrat-!eaning precincts in North Da!!as% thegerr(2andering that occrred in +99+ res!ted in s2a!!er precincts that% 3( a!! indications%

gathered concentrations o6 De2ocratic $oters into District 0 #hi!e !ea$ing concentrations o6

Rep3!ican $oters in srronding Districts and ,&. See States 7h. 9 *2aps o6 Da!!as andCo!!in Conties #ith +99, e!ection inde res!ts sho#ing 2an( 2ore De2ocrat-!eaning

precincts in the North Da!!as sections o6 District 0.

Pres2a3!( re!(ing on Shaw +s state2ent that Aa reapportion2ent p!an 2a( 3e so high!(

irreg!ar that% on its 6ace% it rationa!!( cannot 3e nderstood as an(thing other than an e66ort to

segregatQe ... $oters on the 3asis o6 race%A 509

+/ @nc23ents in6!enced the shape o6 districts in other #a(s. Both District 0 and District ,9%

6or instance% detored to inc!de portions o6 the state !egis!ati$e districts that #ere 3eing

represented 3( the state !egis!ators #ho hoped to rn 6or Congress. See% e. g.' States 7h. +*sho#ing that portion o6 1arrant Cont( inc!ded in District 0 had 3een part o6 ohnsons State

Senate district. @n so2e cases% !egis!ators dre# districts to a$oid the residences o6 potentia!

pri2ar( cha!!engers. See 1r. +9,+9 4 &$.' at 4&. @nc23ents a!so soght to inc!deco22nities that the( epected *or kne# to contain partic!ar!( acti$e spporters this interest

in Aacti$eA $oters o6ten tr2ped an( desire to ensre a partic!ar racia! 2akep. See &$.' at +90

4 &$.' at 40-4+ 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +,0.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/412/735/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/412/735/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/412/735/case.html


52/93

+0+9

. S.% at &4&-&4/% the p!ra!it( o66ers 2athe2atica! proo6 that District 0 is one o6 the 2ost

3iarre districts in the Nation% see a%te' at 9&0% and re!ates the no#-o3!igator( 6!orid descriptiono6 the districts shape% a%te' at 9&5-9&& see a!so a%te' at 9/-9/4 *descri3ing District ,9. s the

2aps appended to this opinion de2onstrate% neither District 0 nor the oston districts ha$e a

2onopo!( on either o6 these characteristics. 1hree other 2a


53/93

1he eistence o6 the e)a!!( 3iarre 2a


54/93

ci6ic sections o6 the district. 1he 2ore te!!ing 2aps are the censs 3!ock 2aps% #hich

de2onstrate that the Co!!in Cont( section o6 District 0 contains 2an( 2ore ce%ss (#ocs o6

!ess than ,5 2inorit( pop!ation than it does 3!ocks that are 2ore than 50 2inorit(. SeeStates 7hs. 45 and 4& *7h. 45 is reprodced% in part% as ppendi D% &%?ra4. 7$en i6 those

2a


55/93

1he p!ra!it( a!so points ot that a s2a!! portion o6 one o6 the tentac!es-the one that etends #est

into 1arrant Cont(-contains an Erican-2erican 2a


56/93

+0,4

@ntent

Perhaps conscios that nonco2pact congressiona! districts are the r!e rather than the eception

in 1eas% the p!ra!it( sggests% a%te' at 9&0-9&+% 9&9-9/0% that the rea! ke( is the directe$idence% partic!ar!( in the 6or2 o6 1eas M 5 Voting Rights ct s32issions and the person o6

then-State Senator ohnson% that the State epressed an intent to create these districts #ith a

gi$en A2ini22 percentage o6 the 6a$ored 2inorit(.A 8&+ ;. Spp.% at +09. 7$en i6 it #ereappropriate to rest this test o6 do2inance on an ea2ination o6 the s3


57/93

testi2on( gi$en in a !ega! proceeding designed to pro$e a con6!icting conc!sion%,4 this

in6or2ation does !itt!e 2ore than con6ir2 that the State 3e!ie$ed it necessar( to co2p!( #ith the

Voting Rights ct. i$en its reasona3!e nderstanding o6 its !ega! responsi3i!ities% see spra' at+00/% the !egis!atre acted to ensre that its goa! o6 creating a 2a


58/93

8&+ ;. Spp.% at +,,-+,. !thogh the District Cort recognied that these co22nit(

characteristics a2onted to accrate descriptions o6 District 0% &$.' at +,% it dis2issed the2 as

irre!e$ant to the districting process% conc!ding that there #as no e$idence that Athe "egis!atrehad these partic!ar co22nities o6 interest in 2ind #hen dra#ing the 3ondaries o6 District

0.A 3(&$. 1he p!ra!it( conc!des that appe!!ants present no reason to disp!ace that conc!sion.

A%te' at 9&&-9&/.

@ do not nderstand #h( #e sho!d re)ire sch e$idence e$er to eist. @t is entire!( reasona3!e

6or the !egis!atre to re!( on the eperience o6 its 2e23ers #hen dra#ing partic!ar 3ondariesrather than on c!ear!( identi6ia3!e Ae$idenceA presented 3( de2ographers and po!itica! scientists.

Eost o6 these representati$es ha$e 3een 2e23ers o6 their co22nities 6or (ears. 'n!ess the

Cort intends to inter6ere in state po!itica! processes e$en 2ore than it has a!read( epressed an

intent to do% @ pres2e that it does not intend to re)ire States to create a co2prehensi$ead2inistrati$e record in spport o6 their redistricting process. State !egis!ators sho!d 3e a3!e to

re!( on their o#n eperience% not on!( prepared reports. 1o the etent that the presence o6

o3$ios co22nities o6 interest a2ong 2e23ers o6 a district ep!icit!( or i2p!icit!( gided the

shape o6 District 0% it a2onts to an entire!( !egiti2ate nonracia! consideration.,5

,5 s 'S1@C7 @NSB'R noted in her dissent in +#er' Aethnicit( itse!6 can tie peop!etogetherA in co22nities o6 interest. 5+5 '. S.% at 944 see a!so Rogers $. o$ge' 458 '. S. &+%

&5+ *+98, *S17V7NS% .% dissenting

+0,/

Nonracia! ;actors: @nc23enc(

1he p!ra!it( ad2its that the appe!!ants Apresent a . s3stantia! case 6or their c!ai2 thatinc23enc( protection ri$a!ed race in deter2ining the districts shape.A A%te' at 9&/. 7$er(

indi$ida! #ho participated in the redistricting process kne# that inc23enc( protection #as a

critica! 6actor in prodcing the 3iarre !ines and% as the p!ra!it( points ot% a%te' at 9&-9&4%e$en the District Cort recognied that this near!( ec!si$e 6ocs on the creation o6 Asa6eA

districts 6or inc23ents #as inti2ate!( re!ated to the 3iarre shape o6 district !ines throghot the

State.

AQ@n 1eas in +99+% 2an( inc23ent protection 3ondaries sa3otaged traditiona! redistricting

princip!es as the( rotine!( di$ided conties% cities% neigh3orhoods% and regions. ;or the sake o6

2aintaining or #inning seats in the ose o6 Representati$es% Congress2en or #o!d-3eCongress2en shed hosti!e grops and potentia! opponents 3( 6encing the2 ot o6 their districts.

1he "egis!atre o3!iging!( car$ed ot districts o6 apparent spporters o6 inc23ents% ... and then

added appendages to connect their residences to those districts. 1he 6ina! res!t see2s not one in#hich the peop!e se!ect their representati$es% 3t in #hich the representati$es

*Jhene$er identi6ia3!e grops in or societ( are disad$antaged% the( #i!! share co22on

po!itica! interests and tend to $ote as a 3!oc A. ;rther2ore% it 2a( 3e that the $er( 6act o6 racia!

http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/613/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/458/613/case.html


59/93

3!oc $oting% a prere)isite to M , !ia3i!it(% see hor%(rg $. 8&%g#es' 4/8 '. S. 0% 5+ *+98&

*and% nder the Corts recent


60/93

@6 so2e independent 3ar pre$ented the se o6 that racenetra! criterion% then the District Cort

2ight 3e in a position to o3


61/93

racia! co2position rather than po!itica! a66i!iation. t the $er( !east% the 2aps sggest that the

dra#ing o6 3ondaries in$o!$es a de2ographic ca!c!s 6ar 2ore co2p!e than si2p!e racia!

stereot(ping.

;rther2ore% to the etent that race ser$ed as a pro( at a!!% it did so 2ere!( as a 2eans o6 A6ine

tningA 3orders that #ere a!read( in partic!ar !ocations 6or pri2ari!( po!itica! reasons. 1his A6inetningA throgh the se o6 race is% o6 corse% !itt!e di66erent 6ro2 the kind o6 6ine tning that

co!d ha$e !egiti2ate!( occrred arond the edges o6 a co2pact 2a


62/93

+0,

!icans than Co22nists.,9 Re)iring the State to ignore the association 3et#een race and part(

a66i!iation #o!d 3e no 2ore !ogica!% and potentia!!( as har26!% as it #o!d 3e to prohi3it theP3!ic ea!th Ser$ice 6ro2 targeting 6rican2erican co22nities in an e66ort to increase

a#areness regarding sick!e-ce!! ane2ia.0

Despite a!! the e66orts 3( the p!ra!it( and the District Cort% then% the e$idence de2onstrates that

race #as not% in a!! !ike!ihood% the Apredo2inantA goa! !eading to the creation o6 District 0. 1he

2ost reasona3!e interpretation o6 the record e$idence instead de2onstrates that po!itica!

considerations #ere. @n accord #ith the pres2ption against inter6erence #ith a !egis!atresconsideration o6 co2p!e and co2peting 6actors% see n. 9% spra' @ #o!d conc!de that the

con6igration o6 District 0 does not re)ire strict scrtin(.

,9 A prediction 3ased on a racia! characteristic is not necessari!( 2ore re!ia3!e than a prediction 3ased on so2e other grop characteristic. Nor% since a !egis!ators !ti2ate prpose in 2aking the

prediction is po!itica! in character% is it necessari!( 2ore in$idios or 3enign than a prediction 3ased on other grop characteristics. @n the !ine-dra#ing process% racia!% re!igios% ethnic% and

econo2ic gerr(2anders are a!! species o6 po!itica! gerr(2anders.A +o(e $. Bo#$e%' 44& '. S.

55% 88 *+980 *S17V7NS% .% concrring in


63/93

a!2ost ec!si$e!(% the res!t o6 an e66ort to create% ot o6 !arge!( integrated co22nities% 3oth a

2a


64/93

2ethod o6 a$oiding $io!ations o6 !a#. 1he 6act that the( 2ight 3e naccepta3!e


65/93

intentiona!!( or accidenta!!( dra#n% #hi!e #hite $oters can 3e p!aced into districts as 3iarre as

the State desires.

1he great iron(% o6 corse% is that 3( re&r&%g the State to p!ace the 2a


66/93

a$oid the pro3!e2 3( a3andoning $o!ntar( co2p!iance #ith M , o6 the Voting Rights ct

a!together. See Shaw 3' 509 '. S.% at &/, *Jhite% .% dissenting post' at +0&-+0&4 *So17R% .%

dissenting.4 1his res!t #o!d not necessari!( 3ring peace to redistricting% 6or there is nogarantee that districts created 3( cort order to co2p!( #ith M , #i!! 3e i22ne 6ro2 attack

nder Shaw in 3oth ;!orida and @!!inois% 6or instance% that $er( sort o6 schiophrenic second-

gessing has a!read( occrred. See >&%g $. State B$. o? E#ect&o%s'

4 1he di66ic!t( o6 3a!ancing 3et#een these co2peting !ega! re)ire2ents #i!! on!( 3e

eacer3ated 3( the a3i!it( o6 !itigants *and corts to se e$idence pro66ered in de6ense 3( theState or its actors in one contet as e$idence aga&%st the State in another. See n. ,4% spra. Jhi!e

there is nothing #rong #ith sing prior inconsistent state2ents *to the etent that the( rea!!( are

inconsistent% States #i!! 3e a!! the 2ore n#i!!ing to enter into the process at a!! gi$en the

certaint( that the( #i!! 3e s3


67/93

+09

prpose other than to 6a$or one seg2ent-#hether racia!% ethnic% re!igios% econo2ic% or po!itica!-that 2a( occp( a position o6 strength at a partic!ar point in ti2e% or to disad$antage a

po!itica!!( #eak seg2ent o6 the co22nit(.A >archer $. aggett' 4&, '. S. /,5% /48 *+98

*S17V7NS% .% concrring. 1hese cases are as good an i!!stration o6 sch se!6-ser$ing 3eha$ioron the part o6 !egis!ators as an(-3t not #ith respect to racia! gerr(2andering. 1he rea! pro3!e2

is the po!itica!!( 2oti$ated gerr(2andering that occrred in 1eas. Ean( o6 the oddest t#ists and

trns o6 the 1eas districts #o!d ne$er ha$e 3een created i6 the !egis!atre had not 3een so intenton protecting part( and inc23ents. See a!so Shaw 33' a%te' at 9/-98 *S17V7NS% .%

dissenting *noting the sa2e in6!ences 3ehind the 3iarre shape o6 North Caro!inas District +,.

B( 2ini2iing the critica! ro!e that po!itica! 2oti$es p!a(ed in the creation o6 these districts% @6ear that the Cort 2a( inad$ertent!( encorage this 2ore o3


68/93

& E( $ie# that a State 2a( act nconstittiona!!( 3( gerr(2andering to 2ini2ie the in6!ence

o6 a grop on the po!itica! process is consistent #ith the 3e!ie6 that there is no constittiona! error

in the dra#ing o6 district !ines 3ased on 3enign racia! considerations. s stice Po#e!! noted inhis opinion in av&s $. Ba%$e*er' 4/8 '. S.% at +&5% there is a sharp distinction 3et#een

Agerr(2andering in the !oose senseA *i. e.' the dra#ing o6 district !ines to ad$ance genera!

po!itica! and socia! goa!s% and Agerr(2andering that a2onts to nconstittiona! discri2inationA*i. e.' the dra#ing o6 district !ines 6or the so!e prpose o6 Aoccp(Qing a position o6 strength at a

partic!ar ti2e% or to disad$antage a po!itica!!( #eak seg2ent o6 the co22nit(%A &$.' at +&4

*citing >archer' 4&, '. S.% at /48 *S17V7NS% .% concrring. See a!so 4/8 '. S.% at +,5% n. 9*AQ pre6erence 6or nonpartisan as opposed to partisan gerr(2anders ... 2ere!( recognies that

nonpartisan gerr(2anders in 6act are ai2ed at garanteeing rather than in6ringing 6air grop

representationA. Jhi!e @ 3e!ie$e that a!!egations o6 discri2inator( intent and i2pact% i6 pro$ed%

sho!d gi$e rise to a constittiona! $io!ation% Shaw' +#er' and these cases a!! in$o!$e a!!egationso6 3oth i2pact and intent that are 6ar 2ore di66se than the a!!egations to #hich #e ha$e

traditiona!!( directed or 2ost rigoros re$ie#. See Shaw 33' a%te' at 9,+-9, *S17V7NS% .%

dissenting c6. 8o*#&o% $. &ght?oot' &4 '. S. 9 *+9&0. "i2iting the constittiona! 3an on

gerr(2andering to those c!ai2s a!!eging that a speci6ic grop *as opposed to e$er( grop has 3een har2ed #o!d 3e 6ar 2ore consistent #ith prior precedent than the Corts sti!!-de$e!oping


69/93

/ Co2pare 5+ Congressiona! =arter!( +0 *+99 *!ist o6 Erican2ericans #ho ha$e ser$ed in

Congress throgh the end o6 +99, and Spp!e2ent to 5, Congressiona! =arter!( +0 *No$. +,%

+994 *!isting 2inorities in the +04th Congress #ith 3i(ear!( p3!ications o6 1he !2anac o62erican Po!itics *p3!ished +9/5-present.

8 D. Bositis% oint Center 6or Po!itica! and 7cono2ic Stdies% Erican2ericans H the +994Eidter2s ,, *re$. Ea( +995. ;i6teen 3!ack candidates ran 6or o66ice in 2a


70/93

17IS CNR7SS@N" D@S1R@C1 &

+044

ppendi C to opinion o6 S17V7NS% .

PP7ND@I C 1 P@N@N ; S17V7NS% .

17IS CNR7SS@N" D@S1R@C1 ,5

PP7ND@I D 1 P@N@N ; S17V7NS% .


71/93

L T @nc23ent Residence

D""S-;R1 JR1 R7 CNR7SS@N" D@S1R@C1S

6ter +99+ Redistricting

Be6ore +99+ Redistricting

+045

'S1@C7 S'17R% #ith #ho2 'S1@C7 @NSB'R and 'S1@C7 BR7?7R


72/93

and it sho!d descri3e the e!e2ents necessar( and s66icient to 2ake ot sch a c!ai2. Nothing

!ess can gi$e notice to those #hose condct 2a( gi$e rise to !ia3i!it( or pro$ide standards 6or

corts charged #ith en6orcing the Constittion. 1hose princip!es o6


73/93

3et#een race and districting princip!es% a 2istake that no a2ont o6 case-3(-case tinkering can

e!i2inate. 1here is% there6ore% no reason 6or con6idence that the Cort #i!! e$enta!!( 3ring 2ch

order ot o6 the con6sion created 3( Shaw 3' and 3ecase it has not% in an( case% done so (et% @respect6!!( dissent.

+04/

@

s its tet indicates and or cases ha$e necessari!( and repeated!( recognied%! rtic!e @ o6 the

Constittion p!aces responsi3i!it( 6or dra#ing $oting districts on the States in the 6irst instance.See rt. @% M ,% c!. + *A1he ose o6 Representati$es sha!! 3e co2posed o6 Ee23ers chosen

e$er( second ?ear 3( the Peop!e o6 the se$era! States% and the 7!ectors in each State sha!! ha$e

the =a!i6ications re)isite 6or 7!ectors o6 the 2ost n2eros Branch o6 the State "egis!atreA

rt. @% M 4% c!. + *A1he 1i2es% P!aces and Eanner o6 ho!ding 7!ections 6or Senators andRepresentati$es% sha!! 3e prescri3ed in each State 3( the "egis!atre thereo6 3t the Congress

2a( at an( ti2e 3( "a# 2ake or a!ter sch Reg!ationsA. 1he Cort has nonethe!ess recognied!i2its on state districting atono2( #hen it co!d discern a strong constittiona!


74/93

a2ong States represented an in6or2a! 3ase!ine o6 accepta3!e districting practices. Je ha$e ths

accorded s3stantia! respect to sch traditiona! princip!es *as those% 6or ea2p!e% 2eant to

preser$e the integrit( o6 neigh3orhood co22nities% to protect inc23ents% to 6o!!o# eisting po!itica! 3ondaries% to recognie co22nities o6 interest% and to achie$e co2pactness and

contigit( #e ha$e seen these o3


75/93

A @ssacharo66% rops and the Right to Vote% 44 72or( ". . 8&9% 88 *+995 see a!so Da$idson%

1he Recent Re$o!tion in Voting Rights "a# 66ecting Racia! and "angage Einorities% in =iet

Re$o!tion in the Soth: 1he @2pact o6 the Voting Rights ct% +9&5-+990% p. , 26. Da$idson HB. ro62an eds. +994 *A7thnic or racia! $ote di!tion takes p!ace #hen a 2a


76/93

2a


77/93

identi6ied categories o6 readi!( co2prehensi3!e e$idence 3earing on the !ike!ihood o6 sch an

in


78/93

+054

ing 7!ection-District ppearances a6ter Shaw v. Re%o' 9, Eich. ". Re$. 48% 50&-50/ *+99 seea!so &$.' at 49 *A1he theor( o6 $oting rights Qthat Shaw + endorses centers on the percei$ed

!egiti2ac( o6 strctres o6 po!itica! representation% rather than on the distri3tion o6 acta!

po!itica! po#er 3et#een racia! or po!itica! gropsA. 1o the etent that racia! considerations doepress sch notions% their shado#s 6a!! on 2a


79/93

did the proportion o6 its racia! 2itre re6!ect an( prpose o6 racia! s3


80/93

+05/

See a%te' at 958 a%te' at 99 *CNNR% .% concrring c6. +#er' 5+5 '. S.% at 9,8*CNNR% .% concrring. Bt the sggested )a!i6ication #o!d 6a!! short o6 e!i2inating the

di66ic!t( cased 3( the eisting de6inition% 6or the ses o6 race to re2ed( past di!tion or to

hedge against 6tre di!tion are not the on!( !egiti2ate ses o6 race that are co$ered% andthreatened% 3( the o$er3readth o6 the Shaw in


81/93

disregard o6 csto2ar( and traditiona! districting practices%A &$.' at 9,8 *CNNR% .%

concrring.

s a standard addressed to the ntid( #or!d o6 po!itics% neither Apredo2inant 6actorA nor

As3stantia! disregardA inspires 2ch hope./ @t is tre o6 corse that the !a# rests certain other

!ia3i!it( decisions on the 6easi3i!it( o6 ntang!ing 2ied 2oti$es% and corts and


82/93

3dget is at one !e$e! rather than another. Eoreo$er% to re)ire a coherent ep!anation 6or the

spe-

+0&0

ci6ic shape o6 e$en one district is to i2pose a 2ode! o6 !ega!istic decision2aking on the one

po!itica! process that !east rese23!es that 2ode!.A Pi!des H Nie2i% spra' at 585-58& *6ootnoteo2itted.

1he reason that se o6 the predo2inant 2oti$e standard in re$ie#ing a districting decision is

3ond to 6ai! is 2ore 6nda2enta! than that: in the po!itica! en$iron2ent in #hich race can a66ecte!ection res!ts% 2an( o6 these traditiona! districting princip!es cannot 3e app!ied #ithot taking

race into accont and are ths% as a practica! 2atter% insepara3!e 6ro2 the spposed!( i!!egiti2ate

racia! considerations. See Pi!des H Nie2i% spra' at 5/8 *AQRace 6re)ent!( corre!ates #ith other

socioecono2ic 6actors. @n e$a!ating odd!( shaped districts% this corre!ation #i!! re)ire corts toatte2pt to ntang!e !egiti2ate co22nities o6 interest 6ro2 the no#-i!!egiti2ate one o6 race. @6

3!acks as 3!acks cannot 3e groped into a high!( irreg!ar district% 3t r3an residents or the poor can% ho# #i!! corts distingish these contets% and nder #hat 2ied-2oti$e standard>A

@ssacharo66% Constittiona! Contors 58 *Ai$en the pa!pa3i!it( o6 racia! concerns in the po!itica!

arena% G+#er=s casation standard co!d either doo2 a!! atte2pts to distri3te po!itica! po#er in2!ti-ethnic co22nities or ... 6ai! to pro$ide a 3asis 6or distingishing proper 6ro2 i2proper

considerations in redistrictingA.

@6% 6or ea2p!e% a !egis!atre 2a( dra# district !ines to preser$e the integrit( o6 a gi$enco22nit(% !ea$ing it intact so that a!! o6 its 2e23ers are ser$ed 3( one representati$e% this

o3


83/93

po!itica! parties. C6. a%te' at 9&/-9&8% 9/0-9/+. Bt #hat i6 the inc23ent has dra#n spport

!arge!( 6or racia! reasons> Jhat% indeed% i6 the inc23ent #as e!ected in a 2a @t #o!d 3e sheer6antas( to ass2e that consideration o6 race in these circ2stances is so2eho# separa3!e 6ro2

app!ication o6 the traditiona! princip!e o6 inc23enc( protection% and sheer incoherence to think

that the consideration o6 race that is constittiona!!( re)ired to re2ed( ;orteenth and ;i6teenth2end2ent $ote di!tion so2eho# 3eco2es nconstittiona! #hen ai2ed at protecting the

inc23ent the net ti2e the censs re)ires redistricting.

1hs% it is as i2possi3!e in theor( as in practice to ntang!e racia! consideration 6ro2 the

app!ication o6 traditiona! districting princip!es in a societ( p!aged 3( racia!-3!oc $oting8 #ith a

racia! 2inorit( pop!ation o6 po!itica! signi6icance% or at !east the nrea!ied potentia! 6or

achie$ing it. nd it

8 7$en in areas #here there is no racia!-3!oc $oting% the app!ication o6 certain traditiona!

districting princip!es 2a( in$o!$e a !egiti2ate consideration o6 race.

+0&,

is 6or


84/93

+0&

!ong #ith this ende2ic npredicta3i!it( has co2e the destrction o6 an( c!ear incenti$e 6or the

States #ith s3stantia! 2inorit( pop!ations to take action to a$oid $ote di!tion. Be6ore Shaw'state po!iticians #ho recognied that 2inorit( $ote di!tion had occrred% or #as !ike!( to occr

#ithot redistricting ai2ed at pre$enting it% co!d not on!( rge their co!!eages to do the right

thing nder the ;orteenth 2end2ent% 3t conse! the2 &% terrore* that !osing a di!tion case#o!d 3ring !ia3i!it( 6or conse! 6ees nder 4, '. S. C. M +988*3 or 4, '. S. C. M 19C#2e4. See

@ssacharo66% Constittiona! Contors 48 *AEinorit( po!itica! actors co!d !e$erage not on!( their

po!itica! po#er 3t the en6orce2ent pro$isions o6 Section 5 o6 the Voting Rights ct% and the

threat o6 sit nder Section , o6 the ct against ad$erse districting decisionsA c6. Hastert $. 3##&%o&s State B$. o? E#ect&o% 6o**r=s' ,8 ;.d +40% +444 *C/ +99 *a#arding 6ees to the

pre$ai!ing parties in a case in #hich the state !egis!atre 6ai!ed to dra# congressiona! districts%

o$er the Board o6 7!ectionss o3


85/93

itse!6 pon a corse o6 ... re$ie#ing cha!!enged districts one 3( one and issing opinions that

depend so idios(ncratica!!( on the ni)e 6acts o6 each case that the( pro$ide no rea! gidance to

either !o#er corts or !egis!atres.A ar!an% ost-Shaw 7ra ,88. 1he traged( in this shi6t o6 po!itica! responsi3i!it( !ies not on!( in the 6act o6 its occrrence in this instance% 3t in the

a3sence o6 coherent or persasi$e


86/93

1he second point o6 re6erence to co2e ot o6 toda(s cases is the r!e that i6 a State 3egins its

2ap-dra#ing e66orts #ith a co2pact 2a


87/93

the district h(pothesied nder 8&%g#es #as the on!( ha$en. See% e. g.' Shaw 3' 509 '. S.% at &4&

*A1he district !ines 2a( 3e dra#n% 6or ea2p!e% to pro$ide 6or co2pact districts o6 contigos

territor(% or to 2aintain the integrit( o6 po!itica! s3di$isionsA.

@ re6er to this step as a Apossi3i!it(A de!i3erate!(. 1he Cort in Shaw 33 does not go 3e(ond an

inti2ation to this e66ect% and Bsh raises do3t that the Cort #o!d go so 6ar. See a%te' at 9//-9/8 *re


88/93

taking an( sch step. Jhi!e there is good reason to !i2it a 6edera! corts discretion to inter6ere in

a States po!itica! process #hen it e2p!o(s its re2edia! po#er in di!tion cases% c6. Vo&%ov&ch $.

Dter' 50/ '. S.% at +5& *A;edera! corts are 3arred 6ro2 inter$ening in state apportion2ent inthe a3sence o6 a $io!ation o6 6edera! !a# precise!( 3ecase it is the do2ain o6 the States ... to

condct apportion2entA% there is no apparent reason to i2pose the sa2e !i2itations pon the

discretion accorded to a State s3


89/93

the +9th centr( and ca!c!ated on the 3asis o6 a districts dispersion% peri2eter% and pop!ation.

See &$.' at 55-5/5. 1his a!ternati$e #o!d 3e tre to Shaw 3 in 2aintaining that a point can 3e

reached #hen the initia!!( !a#6! consideration o6 race 3eco2es nreasona3!e and in identi6(ingappearance as the epression o6 nde consideration and it #o!d e!i2inate +#er=s i2possi3!e

o3!igation to ntang!e racia! considerations 6ro2 so-ca!!ed Arace-netra!A o3


90/93

racia!-3!oc $oting #ere e!i2inated a!ong #ith traditiona! districting princip!es% di!tion #o!d

once again 3eco2e the nor2. Jhi!e di!tion as an intentiona! constittiona! $io!ation #o!d 3e

e!i2inated 3( a rando2!( districted s(ste2% this theoretica! nicet( #o!d 3e o$ershado#ed 3(the concrete rea!it( that the res!t o6 sch a decision #o!d a!2ost ine$ita3!( 3e a soca!!ed

Arepresentati$eA Congress #ith so2ething !ike +/ 3!ack 2e23ers. See spra' at +050. @n an(

e$ent% the s32ergence #o!d $io!ate the prohi3ition o6 e$en nonintentiona! di!tion 6ond in M ,o6 the Voting Rights ct. 1he on!( #a( to a$oid this con6!ict #o!d 3e to dec!are the Voting

Rights ct nconstittiona!% a prospect hard!( in har2on( #ith the Corts readiness to ass2e

toda( that co2p!iance #ith the Voting Rights ct )a!i6ies as a co2pe!!ing state interest 6or prposes o6 !itigating a Shaw c!ai2.

1he second o3


91/93

+0/4

to


92/93

at ,9% 45 *noting that po!itica! sccesses and recognition 2ade 2e23ers o6 an ethnic grop A6ee!

that it 3e!onged in the #ider societ( ... Qand 3roght the2 inside the po!itica! s(ste2A Eint%

7thnicit( and "eadership: n Eter#ord% in 7thnic "eadership in 2erica +98 *. igha2 ed.+9/8 *conc!ding a6ter re$ie#ing se$era! stdies o6 ethnic po!itics that A#e ignore at or peri!

the need to nderstand those processes 3( #hich 3eing shortchanged ... po!itica!!( can 3eco2e

an( grops 2otto or 3att!e standardA c6. ar!an% r Separatis2 +0, *At#o generations o6co22nist sppression and ethnic and re!igios tension in ?gos!a$ia did !itt!e to ensre

sta3i!it(% to!erance% or integrationA.

+0 See% e. g.' No!an% Boston Ea(ora! Race Co!d Break Do2inance o6 7thnicit(% Boston !o3e%

pr. 9% +99% p. 40 *AJhen Boston 6inishes choosing a ne# 2a(or% the cit( 2a( disco$er that

a6ter centries o6 i22igration% ethnicit( is no !onger the do2inant 6actor in its po!iticsA B!ack%

nceSo!id Voting B!ocks are Sp!itting in Boston% Boston !o3e% No$. +% +99% p. + *co22entingthat $oters consider Eeninos @ta!ian descent A!itt!e 2ore than a historica! 6ootnoteA and

o3ser$ing that Aethnic $oting has 6aded ... Qas $arios grops enter the 2erican econo2ic and

socia! 2ainstrea2 ... Qand gain so2e se23!ance o6 Qpo!itica! po#erA D@nnoceno% !otta

Cant Cont on 7thnicit(% Ne#sda(% ct. +9% +99% p. 9/ *noting that AQthe $o#e! at the end o61o2 !ottas na2e 2a( not 2atter in this (ears cont( eecti$e e!ection as it once didA

3ecase A@ta!ian-2ericans in Nassa Cont( are !ike!( to go to the po!!s #ith 2ore than ethnic6a$oritis2 in 2indA attri3ting the dec!ine in ethnicit(-3ased $oting to the

+0/&

1here is% then% so2e reason to hope that i6 $ote di!tion is attacked at the sa2e ti2e that race isgi$en the recognition that ethnicit( has historica!!( recei$ed in 2erican po!itics% the 6orce o6

race in po!itics #i!! a!so 2oderate in ti2e. 1here are e$en signs that sch hope 2a( 3e

$indicated% e$en i6 the e$idence is necessari!( tentati$e as (et. See '. S. Co22n on Ci$i!Rights% 1he Voting Rights ct: 1en ?ears 6ter% p. +55 *an. +9/5 *A@n 2an( areas the great

increase in 2inorit( registration and $oting since the passage o6 the Voting Rights ct in +9&5

has 2eant that po!iticians can no !onger a66ord to ignore 2inorit( $oters. 1his has 3roght a3ota signi6icant dec!ine in racia! appea!s 3( candidates and has 2ade inc23ents and candidates

2ore responsi$e to 2inorit( needsA Carse(% 1he Conteta! 766ects o6 Race on Jhite Voter

Beha$ior: 1he +989 Ne# ?ork Cit( Ea(ora! 7!ection% 5/ . o6 Po!itics ,,+% ,,8 *+995

*reporting% in +994% that Athe conteta! e66ects o6 race 2a( not 3e so di66erent 6ro2 theconteta! e66ects o6 6actors !ike partisanship% ethnicit(% or socia! c!ass as #e 2ight ha$e

3e!ie$edA Sige!2an% Sige!2an% Ja!kos% H Nit% B!ack Candidates% Jhite Voters:

'nderstanding Racia! Bias in Po!itica! Perceptions% 9 2. . o6 Po!itica! Science ,4% ,44

*+995 *A$er the (ears% #hite 2ericans ha$e epressed increasing #i!!ingness to $ote 6or

3!ack candidatesA Peirce% ;resh ir in Cit( a!!% Ba!ti2ore Sn% No$. 8% +99% p. / *A@ncontest a6ter contest% $ictor( has gone to 2a(ora! candidates #ho esche# ta!k o6 raceA see a!so

8&%g#es' 4/8 '. S.% at 5& *noting that crosso$er $oting in 6a$or o6 2inorit( candidates is 2ore

co22on #hen 2inorit( inc23ents stand 6or ree!ection 6o##&%s $. or?o#' "" ;. ,d +,,%

+,4 *C4 +989 *sa2e. 1his possi3i!it( that racia! po!itics% too% 2a( gro# #iser so !ong as


93/93

2inorit( $otes are resced 6ro2 s32ergence sho!d 3e considered in deter2ining ho# 6ar the

;orteenth and ;i6teenth 2end2ents re)ire s to de$ise constittiona! co22on !a# to

spp!ant

6act that ANassa @ta!ian-2ericans 6ee! !ess 2argina!iQed as an ethnic gropA.

+0//

the de2ocratic process #ith !itigation in 6edera! corts. @t conse!s against accepting the

pro6ession that Shaw has (et e$o!$ed into a 2anagea3!e constittiona! standard% and 6ro2 that

cases in$ocation again toda( @ respect6!!( dissent.

U ,004-,0++ stia :: Co2pan( :: 1er2s o6 Ser$ice :: Pri$ac( Po!ic( :: Contact 's
http://www.justia.com/http://company.justia.com/http://company.justia.com/http://marketing.justia.com/tos.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/privacy-policy.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/privacy-policy.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/contact.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/contact.htmlhttp://www.justia.com/http://company.justia.com/http://marketing.justia.com/tos.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/privacy-policy.htmlhttp://marketing.justia.com/contact.html

decision bush v vera texas

Documents