Facts
- After the 1990 census, North Carolina (covered by Voting Rights Act § 5) enacted a congressional redistricting plan creating two majority-Black districts, including District 12.
- District 12 was extremely non-compact, extending in a narrow, irregular corridor across multiple areas of the state.
- White voters challenged the plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.
- In prior proceedings, the Supreme Court held the complaint stated an equal-protection claim and remanded.
- On remand, a three-judge district court found race was used to draw District 12 but upheld the plan under strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to compelling interests in complying with Voting Rights Act §§ 2 and 5.
- The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Which plaintiffs had standing to bring an equal-protection racial-gerrymandering challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map?
- Whether race predominated in the drawing of District 12, triggering strict scrutiny.
- If strict scrutiny applied, whether District 12 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, including remedying past discrimination or complying with Voting Rights Act §§ 2 and 5.
Decision
-
Only plaintiffs residing in District 12 had standing, and only to challenge District 12; plaintiffs outside the challenged districts lacked standing absent specific evidence they were assigned to their districts on the basis of race.
-
Race was the predominant factor in drawing District 12, as shown by the legislature’s objective to create an effective Black voting majority and the district’s extreme shape.
-
The asserted interests did not justify District 12 as drawn:
- Remedying past discrimination was not shown to be the actual motive for using race.
- Compliance with § 5 did not require creating an additional majority-Black district because § 5 prevents retrogression and does not require maximization.
- Avoiding § 2 liability was unsupported because the state did not show a plausible § 2 vote-dilution violation that District 12, as configured, would remedy.
-
The Court reversed the judgment upholding the redistricting plan as to District 12.
Legal Principles
- Standing for racial-gerrymandering claims is generally limited to voters who reside in the challenged district, or who can prove they personally were placed in their district because of race.
- Strict scrutiny applies when race is the predominant consideration in districting and traditional, race-neutral criteria are subordinated to racial goals.
- Compliance with Voting Rights Act § 5 is not a compelling interest for race-based districting when premised on maximizing majority-minority districts; § 5 is an anti-retrogression rule.
- A state cannot justify race-predominant districting as § 2 avoidance without a strong basis to believe a § 2 violation is likely and that the chosen districting remedy addresses it.
- Extreme departures from traditional districting principles can indicate lack of narrow tailoring.
Conclusion
The Court held that only District 12 residents could sue, and it invalidated District 12 because race predominated in its design and the state failed to show the district was narrowly tailored to any compelling interest, including claimed obligations under the Voting Rights Act.