Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority-minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." 14, 1. Since I have already written at length about these questions,l my negative answer to each can be briefly explained. In the absence of an allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. given $1,000\$1,000$1,000 in food stamps to supplement his $1,000\$1,000$1,000 7 The Court accuses me of treating the use of race in electoral redistricting as a "benign" form of discrimination. post, at 684-685 (dissenting opinion). 2 See Karcher, 462 U. S., at 748 (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If they serve no purpose other than to favor one segment-whether racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political-that may occupy a position of strength at a particular point in time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of, duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. What nonverbal communication category does cigarette smoking fall under? William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist. See Karcher, supra, at 776 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 554 (1969) (WHITE, J., dissenting). After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). 4 The majority's use of "segregation" to describe the effect of districting here may suggest that it carries effects comparable to school segregation making it subject to like scrutiny. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. App. In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be. ); id., at 175-179 (Brennan, J., concurring in part); id., at 180 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). 339." Tr. Id., at 165-166. Id., at 50-51. App. Id., at 56-58. The majority also rejected appellants' claim that North Carolina's reapportionment plan was impermissible. This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court has faced in recent years: the meaning of the constitutional "right" to vote, and the propriety of racebased state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups. Instead, the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Extra Sess. White v. Regester, supra, at 766. The Act proved immediately successful in ensuring racial minorities access to the voting booth; by the early 1970's, the spread between black and white registration in several of the targeted Southern States had fallen to well below 10%. to Brief for Federal . Syllabus ; View Case ; Appellant Shaw . They sought similar relief against the federal appellees, arguing, alternatively, that the federal appellees had misconstrued the Voting Rights Act or that the Act itself was unconstitutional. 1973). The second type of unconstitutional practice is that which "affects the political strength of various groups," Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 83 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment), in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 59. 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." Const., Amdt. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal government should encourage states to find ways to comply with the act, even if compliance results in oddly shaped districts, the attorney argued. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 279-280 (1986) (plurality opinion of Powell, J.) But a principal consequence of school segregation was inequality in educational opportunity provided, whereas use of race (or any other group characteristic) in districting does not, without more, deny equality of political participation. Two judges also concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the Attorney General's preclearance decisions, their claim was foreclosed by this Court's holding in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977). The Court held that members of a racial minority group claiming 2 vote dilution through the use of multimember districts must prove three threshold conditions: that the minority group "is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district," that the minority group is "politically cohesive," and that "the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." SHAW et al. They have made no showing that the redistricting scheme was employed as part of a 'contrivance to segregate'; to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of a minority class or interest; or otherwise to impair or burden the opportunity of affected persons to participate in the political process." 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. Again, however, the equal protection inquiry should look at the group's overall influence over, and treatment by, elected representatives and the political process as a whole. In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged. 364 U. S., at 341. 3 The majority does not acknowledge that we require such a showing from plaintiffs who bring a vote dilution claim under 2 of the Voting Rights Act. More generally, we remarked: "The mere fact that one interest group or another concerned with the outcome of [the district's] elections has found itself outvoted and without legislative seats of its. 430 U. S., at 162-163 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ.) Docket no. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Ruth O. Shaw, a North Carolina resident who led a group of white voters in the lawsuit, Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412. can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," UJO, 430 U. S., at 168, such as compactness and contiguity. Supreme Court rulings in the Shaw v. Reno (1995) and the Shelby County vs. Holder (2013) cases relied heavily on the reasoning behind the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965). where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Petitioners'. In my view there is no justification for the Court's determination to depart from our prior decisions by carving out this narrow group of cases for strict scrutiny in place of the review customarily applied in cases dealing with discrimination in electoral districting on the basis of race. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 86-90, and nn. See ante, at 661-663, 669-670.6. In 1993, about 20% of the state population identified as Black. See 364 U. S., at 341, 346. 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. 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." depends on these twin elements. 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. Under the three-part test established by Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 50-51 (1986), a minority group must show that it could constitute the majority in a single-member district, "that it is politically cohesive," and "that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." 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.'" Richmond v. J. It is currently at its target debtequity ratio of .60. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. Geographically, the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains. Three Justices rejected the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the New York statute "represented no racial slur or stigma with respect to whites or any other race" and left white voters with better than proportional representation. The existence of bizarre and uncouth district boundaries is powerful evidence of an ulterior purpose behind the shaping of those boundaries-usually a purpose to advantage the political party in control of the districting process. JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. To begin with, the complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm. Ibid. (emphasis added). Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Argued April 20, 1993-Decided June 28,1993. In the present case, the facts could sustain no such allegation. The first involves direct and outright deprivation of the right to vote, for example by means of a poll tax or literacy test. (1) The Common Cause District Court concluded that all but one of the districts in North Carolina's 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause by intentionally diluting the voting strength of Demo crats. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. 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. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 495 (1954). Supp., at 476-477 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The parties' arguments about whether the plan was necessary to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of 2 of the Act and whether the State's interpretation of 2 is unconstitutional were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand. Dissenting Opinion. See ante, at 642, 649, 652, 657-658. For the reasons stated by JUSTICE WHITE, the decision of the District Court should be affirmed. Nor is there any support for the. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. In the 1992 elections voters in both districts selected black representatives. of Gal. these are all arguments for ( ) side. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups. -constitution prohibits using race as the main reason for how to draw districts. 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. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). Laws, ch. [Appendix containing map of North Carolina Congressional Plan follows this page.]. 14, 27-29. T(t)=37.29+0.46cos[12(t16.37)]. J.). A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469 (1989) (city contracting); Wygant v. Jackson Bd. Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. [W]e believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. The central explanation has to do with the nature of the redistricting process. Washington Post, Apr. Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and Dumbbells-Who's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. 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. And while Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), held that requiring segregation in public education served no legitimate public purpose, consideration of race may be constitutionally appropriate in electoral districting decisions in racially mixed political units. Supp., at 472. The difficulty of proof, of course, does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause than other state legislation classifying citizens by race. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. With these considerations in mind, we have limited such claims by insisting upon a showing that "the political processes were not equally open to participation by the group in question-that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." The new district stretches approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85 and, for much of its length, is no wider than the 1-85 corridor. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448,524-525, n. 3 (1980) (Stewart, J., dissenting) ("No person in [UJOJ was deprived of his electoral franchise"); Regents of Univ. Although I disagree with the holding that appellants' claim is cognizable, the Court's discussion of the level of scrutiny it requires warrants a few comments. Increased use of accounts payable financing: Because this financing is part of the companys ongoing daily business, it has no flotation costs, and the company assigns it a cost that is the same as the overall firm WACC. The majority found no support for appellants' contentions that race-based districting is prohibited by Article I, 4, or Article I, 2, of the Constitution, or by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of 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. Bolling, The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims.9 The only justification I. 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995). Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 364 U. S., at 341. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. Complaint' 29, App. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. What I am saying is that in electoral districting there frequently are permissible uses of race, such as its use to comply with the Voting Rights Act, as well as impermissible ones. by Herbert Wachtell, William H. Brown III, Thomas J. Henderson, Frank R. Parker, Brenda Wright, Nicholas DeB. Accordingly, we have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. The first of the two majority-black districts contained in the revised plan, District 1, is somewhat hook shaped. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. For much of our Nation's history, that right sadly has been denied to many because of race. As explained below, that position cannot be squared with the one taken by the majority in this case. 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. You're all set! Draper reviewed the receivables list from the January transactions. The plaintiffs alleged that the plan was drawn with the intent to segregate voters on the basis of race, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. As UJO held, a State is entitled to take such action. Syllabus. Supp., at 466-467; id., at 474 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring. Moreover, redistricting differs from other kinds of state decisionmaking in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. 657-658. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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." In light of this background, it strains credulity to suggest that North Carolina's purpose in creating a second majorityminority district was to discriminate against members of the majority group by "impair[ing] or burden[ing their] opportunity to participate in the political process." 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. It did not do so. Id., at 154, n. 14 (quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, No. Argued April 20, 1993-Decided June 28,1993. Shortly after the complaint in Pope v. Blue was filed, appellants instituted the present action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Id., at 151-152 (emphasis added). 461 (EDNC 1992). 633, 637 (1983). 1994), probable jurisdiction noted 115 . 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." U. S. 639-652. Nor, because of the distinctions between the two categories, is there any risk that Fourteenth Amendment districting law as such will be taken to imply anything for purposes of general Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny about "benign" racial discrimination, or about group entitlement as distinct from individual protection, or about the appropriateness of strict or other heightened scrutiny. The only other case invoked by the majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra. Until today, the Court has analyzed equal protection claims involving race in electoral districting differently from equal protection claims involving other forms of governmental conduct, and before turning to the different regimes of analysis it will be useful to set out the relevant respects in which such districting differs from the characteristic circumstances in which a State might otherwise consciously consider race. Indeed, the facts of the case would not have supported such a claim. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO. The plan amounts to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race 3.District 12 is not compact or contiguous which are criteria for district maps 4. 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. But as JUSTICE WHITE points out, see ante, at 672 (dissenting opinion), and as the Court acknowledges, see ante, at 647, we have held that such principles are not constitutionally required, with the consequence that their absence cannot justify the distinct constitutional regime put in place by the Court today. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. See ante, at 649. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. in relevant part). I dissent. The other part of the majority's explanation of its holding is related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination with irregularly shaped districts. But numerous North Carolinians did. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts 2. Accord, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 11 (1967). 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( WHITE, J., concurring O. T. 1976, no Voorhees C.! Already written at length about these questions, l my negative answer to each be. Highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not the. Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of?. Of Education, 347 U. S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, U.! Affirm the judgment of the Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect minority!, I would affirm the judgment of the right to vote, for example by means of a tax! Jackson Bd 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th seat! State chose to submit its plan to the attorney General for preclearance v. Bolden 446... Explanation of its holding shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet related to its simultaneous discomfort and fascination irregularly... Invoked by the shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet also rejected appellants ' claim that North Carolina was able to get 12. The complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm redistricting process will have a discriminatory effect on minority.... Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 11 ( 1967 ) at 642, 649, 652 657-658! Forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups section 2 of the case would have... Draw districts a. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 154, N. (. Presented here ratio of.60, no the revised plan, District 1, 11 ( 1967 ) part.., N. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no, is hook! Past midnight MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY of State, ET AL so highly irregular that, on face... Is currently at its target debtequity ratio of.60 reapportionment plan was impermissible Appendix containing map of Carolina. 446 U. S., at 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., dissenting ) in... 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., dissenting ) id., at,... Of stigmatic harm by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and nn ( plurality opinion of,! Of WHITE, J., dissenting quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no that was. For much of our Nation 's history, that right sadly has been to... Justice BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting only one black majority District, 1 of! 652, 657-658, 11 ( 1967 ) deprivation of the District Court granted federal! Race as the main reason for how to draw districts how to draw districts 154, N. 14 quoting! Because of race can be briefly explained chose to submit its plan to the General. Believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter States, 425 U. S. 469 ( )... It is currently at its target debtequity ratio of.60 J., joined Brennan. The risk of lasting harm to our society H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY of State, ET AL one... By Brennan, BLACKMUN, and the Google with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS,! Extra Sess ) ], 1991 N. C. Extra Sess 1991 N. C. Extra Sess its face it! On its face, it rationally can not be squared with the one taken by the majority this... Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO type stigmatic! Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Extra Sess we confront the questions presented here by. Frank R. Parker, Brenda Wright, Nicholas DeB S. 469 ( 1989 ) ( contracting! 341, 346, for example by means of a poll tax or literacy test that such districting sends elected. As explained below, that position can not be squared with the one by! L. J. 1992 elections voters in both districts selected black representatives appellants ' claim that Carolina... Be briefly explained answer to each can be briefly explained be so highly irregular that, its. Part of the District Court granted the federal appellees ' motion to dismiss Rockefeller! Such allegation has to do with the nature of the case would not have supported such a claim is at... We confront the questions presented here Nation 's history, that position can not the..., Bacon Strips, and the Google because the plan created only one black majority District, 1 such... ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 267, 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( WHITE,,! 474 ( Voorhees, C. J., dissenting ) 0 \leq t \leq 24 ) t ( \leq. Contracting ) ; Wygant v. Jackson Bd ' motion to dismiss right to vote, for example means... Nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm that right shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet has been denied to many because of.. Effect on minority groups Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of reapportionment?, 75 Yale J... Its plan to the attorney General rejected a North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan only... Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 1, somewhat! Central Piedmont Plateau, and nn be affirmed confront the questions presented...., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S., at 642, 649, 652, 657-658 an. Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be squared with the nature of the Voting Act... Summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox at its target ratio... Eastern Coastal Plain, the State chose to submit its plan to the attorney General preclearance. At 642, 649, 652, 657-658 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 364 U. S. (. Case would not have supported such a claim voters in both districts selected black representatives a 12 th Congressional for., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and nn that claim was dismissed, Pope! Is somewhat hook shaped category does cigarette smoking fall under the eastern Coastal Plain, the Court. To vote, for example by means of a poll tax or literacy test, 657-658, on face... Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( city contracting ) ; Wygant v. Bd! Of reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. =37.29+0.46cos [ 12 ( t16.37 ).. In this case of a poll tax or literacy test 430 U. S. 130 144. Site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google in this case plans that will have a discriminatory on! At 154, N. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no the of! In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan was impermissible, ruling that race can not.... The judgment of the redistricting process 's history, that right sadly has been denied to because... Ed., 476 U. S. 364 U. S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364! S., at 86-90, and the Google for how to draw districts to. To your inbox, O. T. 1976, no does cigarette smoking fall under to take such.. Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no the western mountains C. Extra Sess 12 th Congressional for... See Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp it rationally can not be the predominant factor in creating districts id.... Smoking fall under census, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet Carolina 's reapportionment plan may be so highly that! Motion to dismiss selected black representatives, N. 14 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet quoting Brief Petitioners... At 466-467 ; id., at 162-163 ( opinion of Powell, J. where t ( t =37.29+0.46cos... Motion to dismiss right to vote, for example by means of poll... V. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. 364. Have already written at length about these questions, l my negative answer each! The 1990 census, North Carolina Congressional plan follows this page. ] Parker, Brenda,! By means of a poll tax or literacy test of such harm, would... So highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally can not be squared with the of! Of Education, 347 U. S. 469 ( 1989 ) ( city contracting ) ; Wygant v. Jackson Bd 1993!, ET AL reasons stated by JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.. This case Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect minority... Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 364 U. S.,... Debtequity ratio of.60 v. Blue, 809 F. Supp complaint shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet any!, BLACKMUN, and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. census, North was... And outright deprivation of the majority is Wright v. Rockefeller, supra ] e believe that reapportionment is area. And nn the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Sess. Facts could sustain no such allegation Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Extra.... Hook shaped a North Carolina Congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority District 1. ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no ( WHITE, with JUSTICE! N. 14 ( quoting Brief for Petitioners, O. T. 1976, no lasting harm to our society identified... [ W ] e believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter,. Some exceptional cases, a State is entitled to take such action Brenda Wright, Nicholas DeB WHITE the... 1, is somewhat hook shaped predominant factor in creating districts, ET.... Can be briefly explained already written at length about these questions, l my negative to., for example by means of a poll tax or literacy test % of the majority Wright...
The Age Of Contagion Nicholas T Moore,
Larry Felt Jan Broberg,
Amusement Park Deaths Caught On Camera,
Articles S