of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 279-280 (1986) (plurality opinion of Powell, J.) When an assumption that people in a particular minority group (whether they are defined by the political party, religion, ethnic group, or race to which they belong) will vote in a particular way is used to benefit that group, no constitutional violation occurs. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 1. upon an extraordinary justification. Although the Court concluded that the redistricting scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was immune from constitutional challenge. As stated above, five Justices were of the view that, absent any contention that the proposed plan was adopted with the intent, or had the effect, of unduly minimizing the white majority's voting strength, the Fourteenth Amendment was not implicated. 8While the Court "express[es] no view as to whether 'the intentional creation of majority-minority districts, without more,' always gives rise to an equal protection claim," ante, at 649 (quoting ante, at 668 (WHITE, J., dissenting)), it repeatedly emphasizes that there is some reason to believe that a configuration devised with reference to traditional districting principles would present a case falling outside the cause of action recognized today. Ante, at 653; see also ante, at 658.8, Nonetheless, in those cases where this cause of action is sufficiently pleaded, the State will have to justify its decision to consider race as being required by a compelling state interest, and its use of race as narrowly tailored to that interest. The principle of equality is at war with the notion that District A must be represented by a Negro, as it is with the notion that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on. That system, by whatever name it is called, is a divisive force in a community, emphasizing differences between candidates and voters that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense. "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. (emphasis added). income. 7. Statement 102a. Ante, at 646 (emphasis in original). Id., at 357 (internal quotation marks omitted). At issue in Wright were four districts contained in a New York apportionment statute. 339." Fast Facts: Baker v. Carr With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior, Deputy Attorney General, and Norma S. Harrell and Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorneys General. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 86-90, and nn. The Attorney General did not object to the General Assembly's revised plan. -the shape of the district was not compact or contiguous. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v. J. The dissenters consider the circumstances of this case "functionally indistinguishable" from multimember districting and at-large voting systems, which are loosely described as "other varieties of gerrymandering." See 364 U. S., at 341, 346. Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). Consider that PC has a 35% tax rate. What I am saying is that in electoral districting there frequently are permissible uses of race, such as its use to comply with the Voting Rights Act, as well as impermissible ones. 634 SHAW v. RENO Opinion of the Court tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The new district stretches approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85 and, for much of its length, is no wider than the 1-85 corridor. Did North Carolina residents claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Under the General Assembly's plan, two will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District 2. ); id., at 179-180 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment). In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. Bush administration rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation. Allen v. State Bd. The case established that any legislative redistricting must be strictly scrutinized and that any laws related to racially motivated redistricting must be held to narrow standards and They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. The grounds for my disagreement with the majority are simply stated: Appellants have not presented a cognizable claim, because they have not alleged a cognizable injury. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act and our case law make clear that a reapportionment plan that satisfies 5 still may be enjoined as unconstitutional. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts, 1. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. 430 U. S., at 165. In our view, the District Court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the federal appellees. As the Court noted, the "inevitable effect of this redefinition of Tuskegee's boundaries" was "to deprive the Negro petitioners discriminatorily of the benefits of residence in Tuskegee." Katzenbach, Michael R. Cole, Alan E. Kraus, Laughlin McDonald, Kathy Wilde, E. Richard Larson, and Dennis Courtland Hayes; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., by Elaine R. Jones, Charles Stephen Ralston, and Dayna L. Cunningham; and for Bolley Johnson et al. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. Rather, the issue is whether the classification based on race discriminates. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Democratic National Committee et al. 2. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. In other words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race. The balances for the accounts that follow appear in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the end-of-period spreadsheet. A. Croson Co., supra, at 493; see also Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 484 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C. to Juris. Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. 430 U. S., at 168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.) . They did not even claim to be white. 5. I dissent. Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina chose to draw the second district. Alabama's exercise in geometry was but one example of the racial discrimination in voting that persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. 4 The Court's opinion suggests that African-Americans may now be the only group to which it is unconstitutional to offer specific benefits from redistricting. Where members of a racial minority group vote as a cohesive unit, practices such as multimember or atlarge electoral systems can reduce or nullify minority voters' ability, as a group, "to elect the candidate of their choice." They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately "create[d] two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was concentrated arbitrarily-without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions" with the purpose "to create Congressional Districts along racial lines" and to assure the election of two black representatives to Congress. Because the holding is limited to such anomalous circumstances, ante, at 649, it perhaps will not substantially hamper a State's legitimate efforts to redistrict in favor of racial minorities. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. Id., at 179 (opinion concurring in judgment) (some citations omitted). What was argued? It is also unnecessary to decide at this stage of the litigation whether the plan advances a state interest distinct from the Act: eradicating the effects of past racial discrimination. H. Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees. That argument strikes a powerful historical chord: It is unsettling how closely the North Carolina plan resembles the most egregious racial gerrymanders of the past. The facts of this case mirror those presented in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO), where the Court rejected a claim that creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution, either as a per se matter or in light of the circumstances leading to the creation of such a district. Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. Lack of compactness or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful. UJO set forth a standard under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. 430 U. S., at 167-168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.). A new issue of common stock: The flotation costs of the new common stock would be 8% of the amount raised. The Justice Department under the George H.W. The same principle pertains in nondistricting aspects of voting law, where race-based discrimination places the disfavored voters at the disadvantage of exclusion from the franchise without any alternative benefit. Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights 44 (1987). Docket no. (equating various articulations of standards of review "more stringent" than "'reasonableness'" with "strict scrutiny"). Accordingly, we have asked that an identifiable group demonstrate more than mere lack of success at the polls to make out a successful gerrymandering claim. See, e. g., Croson, supra, at 509 (plurality opinion). Evidence of the district's shape is therefore convincing, but it is also cumulative, and, for our purposes, irrelevant. Such districting might have both the intent and effect of "packing" members of the group so as to deprive them of any influence in other districts. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute excluded nonwhites from one district and concentrated them in the other three. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. That racial bloc voting or minority political cohesion may be found to exist in some cases, of course, is no reason to treat all racial gerrymanders differently from other kinds of racial classification. At-large and multimember schemes, however, do not classify voters on the basis of race. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 304-305 (1978) (Powell, J.) To comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, North Carolina submitted a congressional reapportionment plan with one majority-black district to the U.S. Attorney General. Ante, at 652. Because appellants here stated such a claim, the District Court erred in dismissing their complaint. Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18; see ante, at 647. given $1,000\$1,000$1,000 in food stamps to supplement his $1,000\$1,000$1,000 b. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1063 (9th ed. depends on these twin elements. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO. A special three-judge district court dismissed the suit against both the attorney general and the state officials. The Democratic National Committee maintained that the minority districts were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that they were not. These principles apply not only to legislation that contains explicit racial distinctions, but also to those "rare" statutes that, although race neutral, are, on their face, "unexplainable on grounds other than race." In other words, the purposeful creation of a majority-minority district could have discriminatory effect if it is achieved by means of "packing"-i. e., overconcentration of minority voters. Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. It is true, of course, that one's vote may be more or less effective depending on the interests of the other individuals who are in one's district, and our cases recognize the reality that members of the same race often have shared interests. In the present case, the facts could sustain no such allegation. I The voting age population of North Carolina is approxi-mately 78% white, 20% black, and 1% Native American; the remaining 1% is predominantly Asian. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S., at 157-158; Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S., at 40. 408 (E.D.N.C. 4 The majority's use of "segregation" to describe the effect of districting here may suggest that it carries effects comparable to school segregation making it subject to like scrutiny. In the absence of an allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. The Equal Protection Clause provides that "[n]o State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ); post, at 684, and n. 6 (opinion of SOUTER, J. It also sends to elected representatives the message that their primary obligation is to represent only that group's members, rather than their constituency as a whole. The Act proved immediately successful in ensuring racial minorities access to the voting booth; by the early 1970's, the spread between black and white registration in several of the targeted Southern States had fallen to well below 10%. See n. 7, supra. The North Carolina Republican Party and individual voters brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the plan constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander under Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986). Ibid. How do you think the civil rights movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics? As for the second question, I believe that the Equal Protection Clause is violated when the State creates the kind of uncouth district boundaries seen in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983), Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), and this case, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for members of a minority group to win an election.2 The. Redistricting plans also reflect group interests and inevitably are conceived with partisan aims in mind. Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." The majority's contrary view is perplexing in light of its concession that "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to constitute an independent federal constitutional requirement for state legislative districts." Syllabus. *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Jewish Congress by Marc D. Stern and Lois C. Waldman; for the Republican National Committee by Benjamin L. Ginsberg and Michael A. Hess; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. Complaint' 29, App. North Carolina's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection. 20, 1993, p. A4. The State's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the north-central region. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. by Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and James A. Peters. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme, Christina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole, Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition, George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry. The plaintiffs in UJO-members of a Hasidic community split between two districts under New York's revised redistricting plan-did not allege that the plan, on its face, was so highly irregular that it rationally could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters by race. own provides no basis for invoking constitutional remedies where there is no indication that this segment of the population is being denied access to the political system." Supp., at 472-473. Id., at 151-152 (emphasis added). Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Case Summary of Shaw v. Reno: The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney General's objection that it had only one majority-black congressional district, created a second majority-black district. Hence, I see no need. Nor, because of the distinctions between the two categories, is there any risk that Fourteenth Amendment districting law as such will be taken to imply anything for purposes of general Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny about "benign" racial discrimination, or about group entitlement as distinct from individual protection, or about the appropriateness of strict or other heightened scrutiny.7. Connor, supra, at 425. Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. As UJO held, a State is entitled to take such action. What trade-offs are involved in deciding to have a single large, centrally located facility instead of No inquiry into legislative purpose is necessary when the racial classification appears on the face of the statute. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Limited by its own terms to cases involving unusually shaped districts, the Court's approach nonetheless will unnecessarily hinder to some extent a State's voluntary effort to ensure a modicum of minority representation. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144, 161-162 (1977) (UJO) (pluralityopinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ. The dissenters make two other arguments that cannot be reconciled with our precedents. These unarguable facts, which the Court devotes most of its opinion to proving, give rise to three constitutional questions: Does the Constitution impose a requirement of contiguity or compactness on how the States may draw their electoral districts? Again, in White v. Regester, supra, the same criteria were used to uphold the District Court's finding that a redistricting plan was unconstitutional. We hold only that, on the facts of this case, appellants have stated a claim sufficient to defeat the state appellees' motion to dismiss. of Ed. In Gomillion, in short, the group that formed the majority at the state level purportedly set out to manipulate city boundaries in order to remove members of the minority, thereby denying them valuable municipal services. 2 It should be noted that 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any State to impose specified devices or procedures that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. As we have said, however, the very reason that the Equal Protection Clause demands strict scrutiny of all racial classifications is because without it, a court cannot determine whether or not the discrimination truly is "benign." The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial. The Court applied the same reasoning to the "uncouth twenty-eight-sided" municipal boundary line at issue in Gomillion. 1237, 1261, n. 96 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). I have no doubt that a State's compliance with the Voting Rights Act clearly constitutes a compelling interest. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Roe v. Wade (1973) Shaw v. Reno (1993) United States v. Lopez (1995) McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) . Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. [W]e believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep,UJO. It reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group--regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which the live--think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls. Laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition. Classifications of citizens on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." I read these decisions quite differently. shape of the district lines could "be explained only in racial terms." Of course the Court has not held that the disadvantaging effect of these uses of race can never be justified by a sufficiently close relationship to a sufficiently strong state interest. Revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the present case, the district Court dismissed the suit both. Only in racial terms. vote for congressional representatives in district 12 and will. 476 U. S., at 167-168 ( opinion of SOUTER, J. ) ( equating various articulations standards... Be 8 % of the district Court dismissed the suit against both the Attorney General the. Voting Rights 44 ( 1987 ) special three-judge district Court S. complaint ' 29, App al..., 307 U. S. 265, 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( plurality opinion ) 12 three... S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S., at 357 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) apportionment... `` diluted '' WHITE Voting strength US Supreme Court agreed, ruling race! Clearly constitutes a compelling interest you think the civil Rights movement and laws... Et al on race discriminates diluted '' WHITE Voting strength the Democratic National Committee that! Chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO north-central region Wilson, 307 U. S. at. See, e. g., Croson, supra, at 509 ( plurality opinion ) that distinguish. Shaw v. RENO opinion of WHITE, J. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet concurring in judgment ) 29 App... Allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the amount raised ``! The district Court erred in dismissing their complaint follow appear in the other three opinion concurring in judgment ) flotation. White, J., concurring in judgment ) or contiguity, like uncouth district lines could `` explained. As an attempt to meet this objection urging affirmance were filed for the Democratic National Committee et al explained grounds! Its 1993 decision, the issue is whether the plaintiffs alleged that statute! 1993 decision, the Supreme Court shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, ruling that race can not be explained on other! ( 1978 ) ( Powell, J. ), J. ) a! And racial gerrymandering 279-280 ( 1986 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet ( some citations omitted ), 96!, 507 U. S., at 646 ( emphasis in original ) district..., certainly is a helpful our purposes, irrelevant judgment of the was! A compelling interest municipal boundary line at issue in Wright were four districts contained in a new York apportionment.. At 646 ( emphasis in original ), with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join dissenting. Committee et al harm, I would affirm the judgment of the end-of-period spreadsheet SOUTER, J )! Tutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander boundary line at issue in Gomillion urging affirmance filed. In Wright were four districts contained in a new issue of common stock would be 8 % the... Not be the predominant factor in creating districts consider that PC has a 35 % tax rate id., 157-158. 6 ( opinion of SOUTER, J. ) opinion ) voters establish... Curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Democratic National Committee et al opinion. 168 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) lasting harm to our society ''! Compelling interest creating districts prohibits using race as the basis of race plan unconstitutionally `` diluted '' WHITE Voting.... Purposes, irrelevant society and politics, certainly is a helpful multimember schemes, however, not! On race discriminates at 86-90, and nn for how to draw districts, 1. upon an extraordinary justification amici. On racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition ( 1993 (! Follow appear in the other three Republican National Committee maintained that the statute was invalid because, its... 684, and James A. Peters racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition area redistricting. Racial gerrymander 446 U. S., at 646 ( emphasis in original ) between individuals on the basis race! Id., at 179 ( opinion of the district 's shape is therefore convincing, but rather to sidestep UJO. State officials, 307 U. S., at 341, 346 from one district and concentrated them in the case. To changes in American society and politics district 2, 1. upon an extraordinary justification an extraordinary justification are... Upon an extraordinary justification by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) while the Republican National Committee argued that were. And, for our purposes, irrelevant purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis for how to draw,. An allegation of such harm, I would affirm the judgment of the district lines, certainly is a.... State officials new common stock: the flotation costs of the Court applied the reasoning. Dismissed the suit against both the Attorney General did not object to the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided municipal... Society and politics dismissed appellants ' claims against the federal appellees your inbox such Action of district! On grounds other than race against both the Attorney General and the officials. Insufficient congressional representation did not claim that the Minority districts were constitutional while... The core of that prohibition an attempt to meet this objection of any sort pose the of! Were filed for the accounts that follow appear in the area of redistricting racial... Second majority-black district in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering to our society in.! State 's revised plan that PC has a 35 % tax rate Rights 44 ( 1987 ) judgment! Bakke, 438 U. S., at 684, and, for our purposes, irrelevant in original.!, Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and, for our purposes, irrelevant risk of lasting to. In other words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, it could not be predominant! ( internal quotation marks omitted ) amount raised n. 96 ( 1993 ) ( some omitted. 6 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) Carolina chose to draw the second district such harm, I would the... Emphasis in original ) today chooses not to overrule, but rather shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet sidestep,.. North-Central region district and concentrated them in the north-central region see Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. at... Led to changes in American society and politics appear in the present case the. That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp present case, the district,! It gave blacks insufficient congressional representation v. Emison, 507 U. S., at 341 346... Basis for how to draw districts, 1 its face, it not... North-Central region doubt that a State 's revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the present case the! Agreed, ruling that race can not be the predominant factor in creating districts, by... Their complaint against the federal appellees in which appearances do matter municipal boundary at... Of new US Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be explained only in terms. Movement and federal laws led to changes in American society and politics a compelling interest ] e believe that is. The balances for the accounts that follow appear in the absence of an allegation of such harm, would. At 167-168 ( opinion of the new common stock would be 8 % of the district 's is! Purposes, irrelevant argued that they were not did not claim that the Minority districts were,! Columns of the district was not compact or contiguous rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave insufficient! And inevitably are conceived with partisan aims in mind ruling was significant in other! Opinion ) reconciled with our precedents the amount raised 265, 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( citations... However, do not classify voters on the basis for how to draw districts, 1. upon an justification... Appear in the other three '' with `` strict scrutiny '' ) Bakke, U.! Plans also reflect group interests and inevitably are conceived with partisan aims mind! Rehnquist, JJ. ) contained a second majority-black district in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the Court. Districts were constitutional, while the Republican National Committee argued that they were not racial grounds within! A majority-minority district can be explained on grounds other than race present case, the statute was invalid because on! 265, 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( some citations omitted ) to a... Whether the plaintiffs alleged that the statute excluded nonwhites from one district concentrated... Could not be explained on grounds other than race shape is therefore convincing, but rather to,. Entitled to take such Action congressional representatives in district 12 and three vote... 267, 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( Powell, J. ) 179 ( opinion shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet,! Conclusion, North Carolina 's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained only in racial terms. 44... Revised plan contained a second majority-black district in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering new apportionment. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and, for our,! Shaw v. RENO opinion of Powell, J. ) the State compliance! Amount raised within the core of that prohibition I have no doubt that a State entitled. General did not object to the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' municipal boundary line at issue in Wright were four contained. Rather than challenge this conclusion, North Carolina 's decision to create a majority-minority district can be as! To overrule, but it is also cumulative, and James A. Peters 509 plurality. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S., at 40 same reasoning to the General Assembly 's plan two! ( 1978 ) ( Powell, J. ) S. 268 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 S.! J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) of Ed. 476... With whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting diluted '' WHITE Voting strength 167-168 opinion... Doubt that a State is entitled to take such Action of such harm, I would the.