## Facts

- After the 2010 Census, North Carolina redrew its congressional map.
- Legislative leadership and consultants applied a target of Black voting-age population (BVAP) of “50% plus one” to satisfy § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- In Congressional District 1, the State shifted large numbers of voters from heavily Black areas (including Durham), increasing BVAP from 48.6% to 52.7%.
- District 1 had for years consistently elected candidates preferred by Black voters without a BVAP majority, functioning as a crossover district with meaningful white support.
- In Congressional District 12, the State redrew lines to increase BVAP from 43.8% to 50.7%, adding about 35,000 Black voters and removing about 50,000 white voters, while reshaping the district’s configuration.
- North Carolina’s highest court previously upheld the districts against racial-gerrymandering challenges.
- Voters filed a federal suit under the Equal Protection Clause; a three-judge federal district court found race was the predominant factor in both districts’ design and invalidated them.

## Issues

1. Whether race was the predominant factor in drawing Districts 1 and 12, triggering strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether North Carolina’s asserted interest in complying with VRA § 2 was a compelling interest and narrowly tailored justification for the race-based design of District 1.
3. Whether District 12 was primarily the product of partisan objectives rather than racial sorting, and what evidence sufficed to show racial predominance.
4. Whether claim or issue preclusion based on prior state-court litigation barred the federal constitutional challenges.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating both District 1 and District 12 as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.
- The Court held the district court did not clearly err in finding that race predominated in both districts.
- For District 1, the Court held the State’s VRA § 2 rationale failed strict scrutiny because the record did not support a reasonable need to convert a successful crossover district into a majority-BVAP district.
- For District 12, the Court rejected the State’s argument that partisanship, not race, explained the lines; the record supported the finding that the State intentionally concentrated Black voters.
- The Court rejected the State’s claim- and issue-preclusion defenses based on prior state litigation.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff proves an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by showing race was the predominant factor motivating placement of voters in or out of a district; if so, strict scrutiny applies.
- Under strict scrutiny, the State must show its race-based line drawing is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest; asserted VRA compliance must be supported by a strong basis in evidence.
- VRA § 2 does not impose a general “50% plus one” rule; a State may not treat that threshold as automatically required where minority-preferred candidates already have an equal opportunity to win (including in crossover districts).
- In assessing whether race predominated over politics, courts may rely on direct and circumstantial evidence of racial sorting and need not require plaintiffs to produce an alternative map as a prerequisite.
- Prior state-court rulings do not automatically preclude federal equal-protection challenges where preclusion requirements are not satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Court held that North Carolina’s post-census redistricting relied on race as the dominant criterion in two congressional districts and that the State failed to justify that use of race under strict scrutiny, including because VRA § 2 did not require turning a successful crossover district into a majority-minority district.


Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 (2017)