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
- Whether race was the predominant factor in drawing Districts 1 and 12, triggering strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- 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.
- Whether District 12 was primarily the product of partisan objectives rather than racial sorting, and what evidence sufficed to show racial predominance.
- 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.