Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does a gerrymandered voting district drawn to create a majority-black congressional district violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Background.  Following the 1990 census, North Carolina was entitled to an additional congressional seat in the House of Representatives.  North Carolina enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black district.  After the U.S. Attorney General objected to the plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the State enacted a reapportionment plan that had two majority-black congressional districts, which more reflected the black voting age population in North Carolina.

The issue, however, was that the black population was dispersed throughout the State.  So, to create this second majority-black district, the North Carolina Assmebly had to come up with a crazy shaped district that would capture pockets of black populations.  Critics of this racial gerrymandering objected, not because it "diluted" white voting strength but that the plan violated their constitutional right to participate in a "color-blind" electoral process.  The gerrymandering is nothing short than an effort to segregate races for purposes of voting.

The Supreme Court agreed that critics of the plan have stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause.

Court's Analysis.  The Court held that individuals may state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause if a re-apportionment "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient" justification. 

Now, racial gerrymandering will not be assumed just because there is a majority-minority district.  The shape of the district matters.  If the district is compact and contiguous, it will survive any sort of Equal Protection scrutiny.

Still, racial gerrymandering "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid."  It is based on the assumption that only those of the same race can truly represent others.  Further, constituents not of the majority race are assumed to be voiceless in the district.  The Equal Protection Clause and our notions of democracy cannot tolerate such balkanization, even if it is benign.

As the Court holds:

Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions, it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer [matters].  It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny.

Racial gerrymandering is not automatically unconstituional, but an exacting standard must be met.  The State, as with any racial classification, must have a strong basis in evidence for concluding that remedial action is necessary.  This case was remanded to determine if North Carolina met this strict standard.