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
- 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.
- 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.