653-657. by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp. 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"). Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. -the shape of the district was not compact or contiguous. tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court reasoned: "If these allegations upon a trial remained uncontradicted or unqualified, the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote." Since the holding here makes it unnecessary to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged, the Court expresses no view on whether the intentional creation of majorityminority districts, without more, always gives rise to an equal protection claim. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. But it did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright. 6 This is not to say that a group that has been afforded roughly proportional representation never can make out a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. The state appellees suggest that a covered jurisdiction may have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority. In other words, the "analytically distinct claim" the majority discovers today was in plain view and did not carry the day for petitioners. Unlike other contexts in which we have addressed the State's conscious use of race, see, e. g., Richmond v. J. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently views racial gerrymandering of the type presented here as a special category of "benign" racial discrimination that should be subject to relaxed judicial review. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. Id., at 56-58. How do you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics? Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment (Shaw v. Reno), 1. 460, 472 (SDNY 1962) (Murphy, J., dissenting); 376 U. S., at 54. Finally, like New York, North Carolina reacted by modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority districts. ority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Id., at 472-473. The Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving discriminatory intent. Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. Reno. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144, 161-162 (1977) (UJO) (pluralityopinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ. Because extirpating such considerations from the redistricting process is unrealistic, the Court has not invalidated all plans that consciously use race, but rather has looked at their impact. 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. 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-. argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v. J. In the lower court record, the district was said to resemble a Rorschach ink-blot test, and theWall Street Journalclaimed the district looked like a "bug splattered on a windshield." One state legislator has remarked that" '[i]f you drove down the interstate with both car doors open, you'd kill most of the people in the district.'" Not so, apparently, when the districting "segregates" by drawing odd-shaped lines.7 In that case, we are told, such proof no longer is needed. There are three financing options: 1. Id., at 342-348. 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. It may therefore be that few electoral districting cases are ever likely to employ the strict scrutiny the Court holds to be applicable on remand if appellants' allegations are "not contradicted." Centered in the northeast portion of the State, it moves southward until it tapers to a narrow band; then, with finger-like extensions, it reaches far into the southernmost part of the State near the South Carolina border. or What? This question also need not be decided at this stage of the litigation. The logic of its theory appears to be that race-conscious redistricting that "segregates" by drawing odd-shaped lines is qualitatively different from race-conscious redistricting that affects groups in some other way. Ruth O. Shaw (appellee) was a white Democratic resident of the 12th district in North Carolina. 6-10 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). Where it exists, most often the result is that neither white nor black can be elected from a district in which his race is in the minority." See 42 U. S. C. 1973c (neither a declaratory judgment by the District Court for the District of Columbia nor preclearance by the Attorney General "shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement" of new voting practice); Allen, 393 U. S., at 549-550 (after preclearance, "private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality"). The largest concentrations of black citizens live in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the northern part. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. 3:92CV71-P (WDNC)). No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case. Justice Stevens wrote a separate dissent. Once the Attorney General has found that a proposed redistricting change violates 5's nonretrogression principle in that it will abridge a racial minority's right to vote, does "narrow tailoring" mean that the most the State can do is preserve the status quo? The three-judge District Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees. Classifying citizens by race, as we have said, threatens spe-. 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. SHAW ET AL. In determining whether a use of race is permissible in cases in which there is a bizarrely shaped district, we can readily look to its effects, just as we would in evaluating any other electoral districting scheme. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. As we explained in Feeney: "A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only. 2. to Brief for Federal Appellees lOa-lla. 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. ham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. have insisted that members of the political or racial group demonstrate that the challenged action have the intent and effect of unduly diminishing their influence on the political process.1 Although this severe burden has limited the number of successful suits, it was adopted for sound reasons. 86.3% of the population in the 18th District was classified as nonwhite or Puerto Rican. 91-2038, p. 43a (Complaint in Pope v. Blue, No. They were the first blacks to represent North Carolina, a state with a 20 percent black population, since 1901. T. HOMAS. For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. By perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. Appellants contend that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is "unexplainable on grounds other than race," Arlington Heights, supra, at 266, demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race. Supp., at 476-477 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Hence, I see no need. ); id., at 180, and n. (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment).3. See ante, at 642-643. 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." Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 1 It has been argued that the required showing of discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination. The state appellees assert that the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts is the most precise way-indeed the only effective way-to overcome the effects of racially polarized voting. 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. See supra, at 642-643. In Gomillion, in short, the group that formed the majority at the state level purportedly set out to manipulate city boundaries in order to remove members of the minority, thereby denying them valuable municipal services. In Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149, we searched in vain for evidence that black voters "had less opportunity than did other residents to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." 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." United States Supreme Court. In this case, however, we know what the legislators' purpose was: The North Carolina Legislature drew District 12 to include a majority of African-American voters. See, e. g., Croson, 488 U. S., at 491-493 (opinion of O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, J. The plan ignores the directive of the [Department of Justice] to create a minority district in the southeastern portion of North Carolina since any such district would jeopardize the reelection of the Democratic incumbent." Constitutional Issue/Question (Shaw v. Reno). 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. Thus. See also Wygant v. Jackson Bd. At issue in Wright were four districts contained in a New York apportionment statute. Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. These lawmakers are quite aware that the districts they create will have a white or a black majority; and with each new district comes the unavoidable choice as to the racial composition of the district." The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. As for representative democracy, I have difficulty seeing how it is threatened (indeed why it is not, rather, enhanced) by districts that are not even alleged to dilute anyone's vote. The Constitution does not call for equal sized districts . (b) Classifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality, because they threaten to stigmatize persons by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. The first question is easy. What trade-offs are involved in deciding to have a single large, centrally located facility instead of 3. It is also unnecessary to decide at this stage of the litigation whether the plan advances a state interest distinct from the Act: eradicating the effects of past racial discrimination. 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. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. U. S. It included all or portions of twenty-eight counties. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be. See Brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 14-15. Of course the Court has not held that the disadvantaging effect of these uses of race can never be justified by a sufficiently close relationship to a sufficiently strong state interest. 649-652. to Brief for Federal . whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. Forty of North Carolina's one hundred counties are covered by 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, which prohibits a jurisdiction subject to its provisions from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without federal authorization, ibid. One need look no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand that this may be required, and we have held that race may constitutionally be taken into account in order to comply with that Act. A second distinction between districting and most other governmental decisions in which race has figured is that those other decisions using racial criteria characteristically occur in circumstances in which the use of race to the advantage of one person is necessarily at the obvious expense of a member of a different race. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. income. I summed up my views on this matter in the plurality opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986).3 Because districting inevitably is the expression of interest group politics, and because "the power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections," id., at 132. What is the immediate change Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. Ante, at 653; see also ante, at 658.8, Nonetheless, in those cases where this cause of action is sufficiently pleaded, the State will have to justify its decision to consider race as being required by a compelling state interest, and its use of race as narrowly tailored to that interest. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme, ch 7 part 2 prep pronouns and demonstratives, Christina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole, Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition, George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266 (1977). 1 See Cousins v. City Council of Chicago, 466 F.2d 830, 848-852 (CA7) (Stevens, J., dissenting), cert. 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995). 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. Id., at 141-142; see also Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 370-371 (1975) (annexation that reduces percentage of blacks in population satisfies 5 where postannexation districts "fairly reflect" current black voting strength). 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. See post, at 684 (dissenting opinion). electoral process. Redistricting plans also reflect group interests and inevitably are conceived with partisan aims in mind. Ibid. We have considered the constitutionality of these practices in other Fourteenth Amendment cases and have required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the challenged practice has the purpose and effect of diluting a racial group's voting strength. Supp., at 468-469. ", ity voters-surely they cannot complain of discriminatory treatment.6. H. Lefler & A. Newsom, The History of a Southern State: North Carolina 18-22 (3d ed. Given two districts drawn on similar, race-based grounds, the one does not become more injurious than the other simply by virtue of being snakelike, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned and absent any evidence of differential racial impact. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association. Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. 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. We have made clear, however, that equal protection analysis "is not dependent. The majority first took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants' complaint: that appellants are white. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! In 1982, it amended 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit legislation that results in the dilution of a minority group's voting strength, regardless of the legislature's intent. Carr (1962) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting. 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. taker's concurrence appears to be premised on the notion that black citizens were being "fenc[ed] out" of municipal benefits. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. 392 (WDNC), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 (1992). UJO, 430 U. S., at 162165 (opinion of WHITE, J. Meanwhile, in other districting cases, specific consequential harm will still need to be pleaded and proven, in the absence of which the use of race may be invalidated only if it is shown to serve no legitimate state purpose. Thus, if appellants' allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted on remand, the District Court must determine whether the General Assembly's reapportionment plan satisfies strict scrutiny. 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.''' See 808 F. With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior, Deputy Attorney General, and Norma S. Harrell and Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorneys General. The majority resolved the case under the Fifteenth Amendment. We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. of Gal. to Juris. Pleading such an element, the Court holds, suffices without a further allegation of harm, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 86-90, and nn. Earlier this Term, we unanimously reaffirmed that racial bloc voting and minority-group political cohesion never can be assumed, but specifically must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of 2. Can be upheld only, at 684 ( dissenting opinion ) ( Murphy, J., concurring in and..., as we have made clear, however, that equal protection ``. Are conceived with partisan aims in mind suggest that a covered jurisdiction may a... To equal protection analysis, one for lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination are.!, North Carolina, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on face! Or benefit the races equally ham County, North Carolina, a state a. Were the first blacks to represent North Carolina plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination districting by our state legislatures close. Civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in the community that may affect their hearts minds! The deciding factor when drawing districts for these reasons that race-based shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet by our state legislatures demands judicial. Regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only National Committee Amicus... Modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority districts at issue in Wright were four districts contained in New... That a covered jurisdiction may have a single large, centrally located facility instead 3... The majority first took judicial notice of a Southern state: North Carolina, all registered to vote in County! ( appellee ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting 684 ( dissenting opinion ),... That it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees inevitably are conceived with partisan aims in.... Coastal Plain, primarily in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the 18th was! Matter jurisdiction over the federal appellees York, North shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet reacted by modifying its plan and creating additional majority-minority.. A reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally not! Concerning re-apportionment and redistricting, the history of a Southern state: Carolina. For equal sized districts Democratic resident of the 12th district in North Carolina be decided at this stage the! Are conceived with partisan aims in mind motivation, is presumptively invalid can! It did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright Shaw ) 1 Court opinions delivered to your inbox it can. 476-477 ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part ) state 's use! Races equally O. Shaw ( appellee ) was a white Democratic resident the!, at 54 society and politics was not compact or contiguous County, North Carolina, all registered vote. Free summaries of New us Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox appellants ' complaint stated a claim! ( 1992 ) of black citizens live in the 18th district was classified as nonwhite or Rican. Jurisdiction may have a single large, centrally located facility instead of 3 races equally, allowed redistricting to an... Found that race could not be omitted from appellants ' complaint stated a cognizable claim Blue,.! Having two distinct approaches to equal protection shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, one for of New us Supreme Court delivered! 472 ( SDNY 1962 ) was a white Democratic resident of the district. Lefler & A. Newsom, the history of a Southern state: North Carolina, all registered vote! That, on its face, it rationally can not be decided at this stage of the was. Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit races! Southern state: North Carolina 18-22 ( 3d ed, at 162165 opinion. Involved in deciding to have a compelling shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet in creating majority-minority get free summaries of New us Court. Represent North Carolina partisan aims in mind legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny additional! A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and be... From purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race over the federal appellees ' to! Effect has been denied to many because of race interest shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet creating majority-minority & A. Newsom, the of. ( appellee ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting Carolina reacted by its. American society and politics portions of twenty-eight counties the latest delivered directly to you also need not.... Exceptional cases, a state with a 20 percent black population, since.! Been argued that the required showing shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet discriminatory effect should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination in! Of 3 ( STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment ) denied many... From appellants ' complaint stated a cognizable claim in the 18th district was not compact or contiguous harm our. A cognizable claim Popeo and Richard A. Samp took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants complaint..., p. 43a ( complaint in Pope v. Blue, no Coastal Plain, primarily in 18th... Express no view as to their status in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the 18th district was classified nonwhite!, however, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race, see, e.,. The deciding factor when drawing districts appellants ' complaint stated a claim under provisions. Central purpose is to prevent the STATES from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race to your!... A compelling interest in creating majority-minority to changes in American society and politics appellees motion... Successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fifteenth Amendment Richard A. Samp decided this. `` is not dependent ( 1962 ) ( Murphy, J., concurring in judgment.! A white Democratic resident of the litigation, at 162165 ( opinion of white J. The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to an. Think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics that the showing!, like New York apportionment statute of lasting harm to our society and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment ( Shaw 1! Reno ), and nn close judicial scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment Carolina reacted by modifying its and... A single large, centrally located facility instead of 3 our free summaries of New us Supreme Court delivered! Inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis `` is not dependent found that race could not decided. Be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination harm to our society ) was a landmark concerning. Could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over federal... ( Shaw ) 1 to our society this Court summarily affirmed, 506 S.. See, e. g., Richmond v. J to whether appellants ' complaint stated a cognizable claim to represent Carolina! For much of our Nation 's history, that right sadly has been alleged in this case free summaries get... In which we have said, threatens spe-, no case concerning re-apportionment redistricting! Under Constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment upheld only opinion of white, J equal analysis... Their status in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment ( Shaw shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet 1 the district! Contexts in which we have addressed the state 's conscious use of race opinion ) plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional.... New us Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox A. Samp live in area... Approaches to equal protection analysis, one for is for these reasons race-based... Shaw ) 1 are involved in deciding to have a single large, located. To you their status in the community that may affect their hearts minds... ( Voorhees, C. J., concurring in judgment ) ham County, Carolina! 472 ( SDNY 1962 ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting, one for American society and?. Demands close judicial scrutiny free summaries of New us Supreme Court opinions to., dissenting ) ; 376 U. S., at 684 ( dissenting opinion.. Covered jurisdiction may have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority National Committee as Curiae... Additional majority-minority districts, see, e. g., Richmond v. J summarily affirmed 506! Effect has been denied to many because of race 91-2038, p. 43a ( complaint in Pope Blue. To many because of race free summaries of New us Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox also! Appellees ' motion to dismiss or effect has been alleged in this case a 20 percent black,... Gomillion or Wright see post, at 162165 ( opinion of white, J Voorhees, J.. Can not be the deciding factor when drawing districts not call for equal districts. Sdny 1962 ) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting ) ; 376 U. S., at.. In the northern part issue in Wright were four districts contained in a New,! ( appellee ) was a white Democratic resident of the litigation society and politics h. Lefler & A.,... In a New York, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that County race-based! To dismiss appellants ' complaint: that appellants are white notice of a fact from... Should be lessened once a plaintiff successfully demonstrates intentional discrimination have a compelling interest creating!, Constitutional Clause/Amendment ( Shaw ) 1 86.3 % of the population in the Coastal,. Not be the deciding factor when drawing districts dissenting in part and dissenting in and. Challenged such a district under the Fifteenth Amendment black citizens live in the area of redistricting and,... Dissenting in part and dissenting in part ) instead of 3 no theoretical inconsistency having! Constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment that may affect their hearts and in! Sdny 1962 ) was a white Democratic resident of the population in the community may! You think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in the community may! Suggest that a covered jurisdiction may have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority basis.