Bartlett v. Strickland

2009-03-09

Headline: Court limits Voting Rights Act claims, ruling states need not create crossover districts and that section 2 requires a minority to exceed fifty percent of the voting-age population before a district is required, narrowing federal remedies.

Holding: The Court held that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require drawing crossover districts and that a minority group must be a numerical majority of the voting-age population (over 50%) to qualify for section 2 relief.

Real World Impact:

Limits when federal law can force district lines to create crossover coalitions.
Affirms a 50% voting-age majority threshold for section 2 claims.
Leaves legislatures free to draw crossover districts voluntarily.

Topics: voting rights, redistricting, minority representation, districting rules

Summary

Background

State election officials in North Carolina split Pender County when drawing House District 18 after the 2000 census. The legislature said the split would let African-American voters join with some majority voters to elect their preferred candidate. The new District 18 had a 39.36% African-American voting-age population instead of 35.33% if the county had been kept whole. A trial court treated that as a de facto majority-opportunity district; the North Carolina Supreme Court disagreed and ordered a redraw. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case to decide one legal question from Gingles—the first threshold test about how large a minority must be to show an actionable vote-dilution claim.

Reasoning

The Court held that, under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a party must show a minority can form a numerical majority of the voting-age population in a single-member district before a federal court can require drawing that district. The majority explained this bright-line rule gives an objective, administrable test and avoids asking courts to make long-term race-based political predictions about crossover voting. The Court said section 2 does not mandate creating crossover districts, though legislatures may choose them. The opinion did not decide cases with evidence of intentional discrimination and noted other parts of the established three-part Gingles framework remain relevant.

Real world impact

This ruling makes it harder for minority groups to force courts to order crossover or coalition districts when the minority is below 50% of voting-age residents. State lawmakers remain free to draw such districts voluntarily and can use crossover patterns as part of their defenses. The decision shifts some disputes from federal remedy claims toward state law, legislative choice, and possibly congressional clarification.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter (joined by others) argued crossover districts can satisfy section 2 when minorities can elect with reliable crossover votes; Justice Breyer suggested a different numerical test (for example, a 2-to-1 ratio) would be more realistic; Justice Ginsburg urged Congress to clarify section 2; Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment, arguing the statute does not authorize dilution claims.