Miller v. Johnson (1995)
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 1:13PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Must a majority-minority district be oddly shaped (racial gerrymandering) for individuals to bring an Equal Protection Clause violation challenging the district?
Background. In response to concerns from the Justice Department, Georgia created three majority-minority congressional districts. The districts, however, were contiguous and congruent. They were not bizarrely shaped and just happened to pin point concentrations of black voters. White voters of Georgia brought an Equal Protection suit and claimed that the majority-minority districts were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed.
Court's Analysis. The Supreme Court noted that the shape of the district is not the determinative factor as to whether a majority-minority district violates the Equal Protection Clause. The question is whether the drawing of districts is done to segregate voters based on race. The shape of the district is only a threshold requirement of proof as circumstantial evidence that a district was purposely drawn along racial lines.
The Court notes:
[A] plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations.
In this case, the evidence showed that the Georgia General Assembly was motivated by a predominant, overriding desire to assign black populations to this particular district. Such is not allowed unless narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling State interest (strict scrutiny). This is not the case here.
The key to whether strict scrutiny applies is if race is the predominant factor in drawing a district.