## Facts

- North Carolina’s constitution included a “Whole County Provision” generally forbidding splitting counties when drawing state legislative districts.
- In prior redistricting, the legislature created North Carolina House District 18 by splitting multiple counties, including Pender County, asserting the design was needed to satisfy § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- By the 2003 redistricting, District 18’s Black voting-age population was 39.36%; a configuration keeping Pender County whole would have been 35.33%.
- State officials defended splitting Pender County on the theory that a higher Black voting-age percentage would allow Black voters to elect their preferred candidate with support from crossover majority voters.
- Pender County officials and voters sued in state court, alleging the districting plan violated the Whole County Provision; state officials argued § 2 required the county split to avoid minority vote dilution.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act ever requires creation or preservation of a single-member district where the minority group is less than 50% of the voting-age population but could elect its candidate of choice with crossover support.
2. Whether the first *Gingles* precondition requires that the minority group be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a numerical majority in a potential single-member district.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court.
- A plurality concluded § 2 does not require drawing lines to create or preserve “crossover districts” where the minority group is less than a numerical majority of the voting-age population.
- Because African Americans were not a numerical majority in District 18, § 2 did not compel splitting Pender County; North Carolina could comply with its Whole County Provision.
- A concurrence in the judgment would have rejected the vote-dilution theory under § 2 more broadly.
- Dissents argued § 2 should protect minorities’ practical ability to elect candidates of choice, including through crossover voting, and criticized a rigid 50% rule.

## Legal Principles

- For § 2 vote-dilution liability premised on creating a single-member district, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in a potential district.
- Section 2 does not mandate drawing district lines to enable a sub-50% minority population to elect its preferred candidate by combining with crossover majority voters.
- States remain free to draw crossover (or coalition) districts voluntarily; the ruling limits only what § 2 requires.
- A bright-line numerical-majority requirement was treated as a workable constraint that limits race-conscious districting and avoids unstable, fact-intensive inquiries into coalition and crossover voting potential.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 2 requires a numerical minority voting-age majority before it compels creation of a remedial district, rejecting claims that § 2 mandates crossover districts and leaving states to follow state redistricting rules unless federal law requires otherwise.


Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009)