Bush v. Vera

1996-06-13

Headline: Court strikes down three Texas congressional districts as racial gerrymanders, applies strict scrutiny, and blocks those race-based district designs, making it harder for states to draw majority-minority districts and increasing redistricting litigation.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Invalidates some race-based majority-minority districts and allows courts to block similar plans.
Makes states more cautious when using race in redistricting; increases litigation risk.
Complicates compliance with the Voting Rights Act for lawmakers and election officials.

Topics: race and redistricting, voting rights, congressional redistricting, gerrymandering

Summary

Background

State officials redrew Texas’ congressional map after the 1990 census added three seats. The plan created Districts 30, 29, and 18 to provide majority-minority opportunities in Dallas and Houston. The Justice Department precleared the plan under the Voting Rights Act, but voters sued and a federal trial court found those three districts unconstitutional and drew detailed findings about how the lines were drawn.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the districts were “racial gerrymanders” and whether race was the dominant factor in drawing them. The Court applied strict scrutiny — the toughest review — because it found that race predominated over traditional districting principles in those districts. It relied on direct state statements, the use of block-by-block racial data by the state’s computer program, the districts’ irregular shapes, and the way lines split precincts. The Court concluded the maps were not “narrowly tailored” to a compelling interest and therefore upheld the trial court’s invalidation.

Real world impact

The decision means courts can and will strike down unusually shaped districts when race clearly drives line drawing, even when states say they are complying with the Voting Rights Act. Lawmakers and election officials must balance avoiding vote-dilution liability with avoiding race-dominated maps. The opinion also signals more litigation and greater caution by states that use racial data in redistricting.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices disagreed about scope. One concurrence urged strict scrutiny whenever race is intentionally used to create majority-minority districts. Dissenting opinions argued the mapshaping reflected political and incumbency goals and warned the ruling could chill efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act.