137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017)
In 2010 the census showed that North Carolina’s population had grown by nearly 1.5 million people.1 The General Assembly therefore had to redraw the State’s 13 congressional districts to comply with the one-person, one-vote requirement.2
State Senator Robert Rucho and State Representative David Lewis chaired the redistricting committees and hired Dr. Thomas Hofeller to prepare the new map.3 The legislature adopted a plan that significantly altered Districts 1 and 12.4
District 1 had been substantially underpopulated.5 To comply with the Constitution’s one-person-one-vote principle, the State needed to place almost 100,000 new people within the district’s boundaries. Rucho, Lewis, and Hofeller chose to take most of those people from heavily black areas of Durham, requiring a finger-like extension of the district’s western line.6 With that addition, District 1’s BVAP rose from 48.6% to 52.7%.7
District 12 was reconfigured by adding areas in Guilford County.8 The changes produced a net gain of 35,000 African-American voters of voting age and a net loss of 50,000 white voters of voting age, raising its black voting-age population from 43.8% to 50.7%.9
Registered voters in the two districts, including David Harris and Christine Bowser, sued North Carolina officials.10 They alleged that both districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.11 After a bench trial a three-judge District Court held that racial considerations predominated in the design of both districts.12 The State appealed and the Supreme Court summarily vacated the District Court’s decision.13 On remand the District Court again found that the plaintiffs had produced sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence showing race as the predominant factor in drawing both districts.14
Evidence at trial included the legislature’s own documents directing the creation of two majority-black districts.15 The map-drawing software allowed monitoring of racial composition.16 Public statements by Rucho and Lewis attributed changes in District 12 to Voting Rights Act concerns.17 Congressman Mel Watt credibly testified that Rucho disclosed a majority-minority target for District 12.18 An expert report by Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere showed that black registered voters in the six counties overlapping with District 12 were three to four times more likely than white registered voters to be placed in District 12.19 The District Court credited the plaintiffs’ evidence, including live testimony, over the State’s contention that politics alone explained the lines.20
Whether race was the predominant factor motivating the North Carolina legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without District 1?21
A plaintiff pressing a racial gerrymandering claim must prove that race was the predominant, overriding factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district, which may be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence.22
Yes. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that the General Assembly drew District 1 to achieve a racial target of 50% African-American voters.23 The legislature’s own documents directed creation of two majority-black districts, and its map-drawing software permitted monitoring of racial composition.24 The addition of nearly 100,000 people drawn mostly from heavily black areas of Durham raised the district’s black voting-age population from 48.6% to 52.7%.25
Those steps subordinated traditional districting principles such as compactness and respect for county lines.26
The District Court correctly concluded that race predominated in drawing District 1.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas joined the majority’s conclusion that race predominated in drawing District 1 and that the district cannot survive strict scrutiny.28 He wrote separately to reiterate his longstanding view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to redistricting at all.29 Because Section 2 supplies no justification for race-based districting, North Carolina’s concession that it created District 1 as a majority-black district is alone sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny.30
Thomas therefore agreed that the District Court’s judgment as to District 1 should be affirmed, while distancing himself from the majority’s assumption that compliance with Section 2 can ever constitute a compelling interest.31
Whether the State had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that the Voting Rights Act required drawing District 1 with a 50% African-American voting-age population?32
When a State invokes the VRA to justify race-based districting, it must show that it had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that the statute required its action.33 This requires a meaningful legislative inquiry into whether the three Gingles preconditions, including effective white bloc-voting, would be met in a new district created without race-based measures.
No. Electoral history showed that for nearly twenty years African-Americans made up less than a majority of District 1’s voters, yet their preferred candidates won consistently with 59% to 70% of the vote. The district therefore functioned as a crossover district in which white voters helped elect the minority’s candidate of choice.34 The legislature conducted no inquiry into whether a new, enlarged District 1 created without a racial target could lead to Section 2 liability.35 Instead it proceeded under the erroneous legal assumption that Strickland mandated a 50%-plus BVAP whenever possible.36
The State lacked a strong basis in evidence that the Voting Rights Act required drawing District 1 with a 50% African-American voting-age population.37
Whether race was the predominant factor motivating the North Carolina legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without District 12?38
A plaintiff pressing a racial gerrymandering claim must prove that race was the predominant, overriding factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district, which may be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence.
Yes. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that the legislature drew District 12 to achieve a racial target of 50% African-American voters.39 Public statements by Rucho and Lewis attributed the augmented BVAP to Voting Rights Act concerns.40 Congressman Watt credibly testified that Rucho disclosed a majority-minority target.41
Dr. Ansolabehere’s report showed that black registered voters were three to four times more likely than white registered voters to be placed in the district regardless of party.42 The District Court credited this evidence over the State’s political-gerrymander defense.43
The District Court correctly concluded that race predominated in drawing District 12.44
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Chief Justice Roberts And Justice Kennedy As To Parts I, Ii, And Iii-a
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment as to District 1 but dissented as to District 12.45 He concluded that the District Court clearly erred in finding that race predominated in District 12.46 The evidence showed that the legislature drew the district to achieve partisan goals rather than racial ones.47
Plaintiffs failed to produce an alternative map demonstrating that the legislature could have achieved its political objectives while improving racial balance.48 Alito would have reversed the District Court’s judgment as to District 12 because the challengers did not carry their demanding burden of proving that race, rather than politics, was the predominant factor.49
Whether the State had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that the Voting Rights Act required drawing District 12 with a 50% African-American voting-age population?50
When a State invokes the VRA to justify race-based districting, it must show that it had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that the statute required its action. This requires a meaningful legislative inquiry into whether the three Gingles preconditions, including effective white bloc-voting, would be met in a new district created without race-based measures.
No. The State asserted a compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act but made no attempt to justify its attention to race in designing District 12 under Section 5.51 The District Court correctly held that the legislature had no strong basis in evidence for believing that a 50% racial target was necessary.52
The State lacked a strong basis in evidence that the Voting Rights Act required drawing District 12 with a 50% African-American voting-age population.53
Whether the District Court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the racial gerrymandering claims?54
A plaintiff pressing a racial gerrymandering claim must prove that race was the predominant, overriding factor motivating the legislature’s decision.55 If racial considerations predominated, the design must withstand strict scrutiny by showing that the State had good reasons for thinking the Voting Rights Act demanded the race-based steps taken.56
Yes. The District Court correctly applied the predominance standard from Miller.57 It also applied the strong-basis-in-evidence requirement for any Voting Rights Act justification.58 The court did not defer to the legislature’s judgment on narrow tailoring.59 It properly reviewed the factual findings for clear error under the deferential standard required by Rule 52(a).60
The District Court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the racial gerrymandering claims.61
Whether the District Court should have deferred to the legislature’s judgment that the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest?62
No. The District Court correctly refused to defer to the legislature’s judgment that the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in Voting Rights Act compliance.65 Instead the court independently evaluated whether the State had a strong basis in evidence for its race-based decisions and found the evidence insufficient.66
The District Court correctly refused to defer to the legislature’s judgment on narrow tailoring.67