## Facts

- After the 1990 census, Georgia gained an additional congressional seat and redrew its congressional districts.
- Georgia’s earlier plans were submitted for § 5 Voting Rights Act preclearance; the Department of Justice objected and urged creation of a third majority-Black district.
- Georgia enacted a plan creating three majority-Black districts, including a new Eleventh Congressional District.
- The Eleventh District connected geographically separated Black populations across the state in an irregular configuration, linking Black neighborhoods in metropolitan Atlanta with Black communities on the coast.
- Voters residing in the Eleventh District challenged the plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A three-judge federal district court held that race was the overriding factor in drawing the Eleventh District and struck it down; state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia’s Eleventh Congressional District assigned voters on the basis of race such that race predominated over traditional districting criteria, triggering strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether obtaining § 5 Voting Rights Act preclearance (or complying with the Act) can justify a race-based districting plan, and if so, whether Georgia’s use of race was narrowly tailored.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the Eleventh District.
- The Court held that plaintiffs are not required to make a threshold showing that a district is bizarrely shaped; district shape is probative but not necessary to prove a racial gerrymander.
- The Court concluded that race was the dominant and controlling rationale for the Eleventh District’s lines and that traditional districting principles were subordinated to racial considerations.
- Because race predominated, strict scrutiny applied.
- Even assuming compliance with the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest, Georgia’s plan was not narrowly tailored; the Act did not require creation of a third majority-Black district, and § 5 could not be treated as a mandate to maximize majority-minority districts.

## Legal Principles

- A redistricting plan violates equal protection when race is the predominant factor motivating district lines and traditional districting principles are subordinated to racial considerations.
- Plaintiffs may prove racial predominance through circumstantial evidence; extreme irregularity of district shape is relevant evidence but not a prerequisite.
- Once racial predominance is shown, strict scrutiny applies, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring.
- Compliance with the Voting Rights Act does not permit race-based districting beyond what the statute requires; § 5 preclearance cannot be administered as a race-maximization program.
- Narrow tailoring in this setting demands a close fit between the use of race and what federal voting-rights law actually requires, rather than a generalized effort to increase minority representation.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Georgia’s Eleventh District because race predominated over traditional districting criteria, triggering strict scrutiny that the State could not satisfy; the decision also limited reliance on § 5 preclearance demands as a justification for extensive race-based line drawing.


Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)