Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does a reapportioned district that was drawn based on political, as well as racial, motives violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?

Background.  North Carolina drew an oddly shaped majority-minority district.  The district, however, was drawn to create a safe Democratic seat as well as to create a majority black district.  A three day trial was held and the District Court found that the district was drawn predominately through racial motives and that the district was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court reversed and found that the District Court committed clear error in its finding.

Court's Analysis.  The Supreme Court noted that this case was essentially about an evidentiary issue.  Did the District Court commit clear error when it found that the district was drawn predominantly for racial purposes?  The Supreme Court believed that it did.

In order for strict scrutiny to apply, race must not simply be a motivation for the drawing of a majority-minority district, but it must be the "predominant factor" in motivating the legislature's districting decision.

Here, there was insufficient evidence that the legislature was predominantly motivated by race.  The fact that heavily white precincts with high Democratic Party registration were excluded while heavily black precincts with lower Democratic Party registration were included, demonstrates nothing.  Legislators could believe that white voters are more likely to cross party lines.  Further, swapping a few precincts here or there in drawing a district does not demonstrate the race is the predominate factor in the drawing of the district.

It just may happen that, as a result of the high percentage of blacks who vote Democrat, majority-minority districts may be drawn for political purposes and will survive constitutional scrutiny.  Such is the case with this district.

There just was not sufficient evidence that race was the predominant factor in drawing the district.

Afterword.  If the Court is going to examine motivation, does it not create a perverse incentive for legislators to lie about their motivation?  At the same time, in the South, blacks are heavily Democratic voters and white are heavily Republican, so does political gerrymandering also result in racial gerrymandering?  Why should political gerrymandering be constitution but racial gerrymandering is not?  Does this not allow for the racial balkanization that so disturbed the Court?