Shaw v. Hunt

1996-06-13

Headline: Court strikes down North Carolina’s oddly shaped, race-based congressional district, ruling it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment and blocking the second majority-black district, limiting states’ use of race in redistricting.

Holding: The Court held that North Carolina’s legislature made race the predominant factor in creating District 12 and that the oddly shaped majority-black district was more than necessary to achieve the State’s asserted Voting Rights Act goals.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for states to create race-based majority districts without strong, specific justification.
Says districts must be geographically compact to fix vote-dilution under the Voting Rights Act.
Restricts reliance on Justice Department preclearance demands to justify race-based maps.

Topics: racial gerrymandering, voting rights, redistricting, district shape and compactness

Summary

Background

After the 1990 census North Carolina added a 12th House seat. The State first drew one majority-black district, then, after the Justice Department objected, the legislature redrew the map to create a second majority-black district (called District 12) in a different region. Private voters sued, and the District Court found the legislature “deliberately drew” District 12 to produce a black voting majority, though a majority of that court thought the plan survived constitutional review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether race was the main factor in drawing District 12 and whether the use of race was justified. Relying on the district’s bizarre, serpentine shape and state admissions that the “overriding purpose” was to create two majority-black districts, the Court concluded race was the dominant consideration. It held that compliance with the Justice Department’s preclearance requests and with parts of the Voting Rights Act did not justify a district that was not narrowly focused on fixing a proven problem. In particular, the Court found District 12 was not geographically compact and therefore could not remedy a vote-dilution claim under the Act.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the District Court and struck District 12 as a violation of equal protection. The decision limits when states may draw districts primarily on race, requires stronger fit between a race-based district and the specific voting-rights problem, and curbs the argument that federal preclearance demands automatically justify race-focused maps. The Court also narrowed who has standing to sue about a district to residents actually placed in that district.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens (joined by Ginsburg and Breyer in parts) dissented, arguing the Court should defer to the legislature, that multiple motives (including avoiding litigation and remedying history) justified the plan, and that the plaintiffs lacked proper standing.