Also known as: predominant factors · predominant-factor test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A standard for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause. Race qualifies as the predominant factor when a legislature subordinates traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions to racial considerations in drawing district lines.
A test for determining whether Article 2 of the UCC governs a mixed contract involving both goods and services. The test asks whether the predominant factor or thrust of the transaction is the sale of goods, with services incidentally involved, or the rendition of services, with goods incidentally involved.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A standard for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause. Race qualifies as the predominant factor when a legislature subordinates traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions to racial considerations in drawing district lines.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State officials drew District 12 to snake along a valley and enclose several majority-Latino farmworker towns while skipping nearby non-Latino towns. The resulting shape ignored compactness and county lines. Voters sued, claiming race was the predominant factor. The court applied strict scrutiny because traditional principles had been subordinated to racial goals.
Seattle assigned students to high schools using a racial tiebreaker when schools were oversubscribed. Parents challenged the plan. The court held that race was not the predominant factor because student choice alone determined placement in more than eighty percent of cases.
Plaintiffs must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions to racial considerations. Direct evidence of legislative purpose or circumstantial evidence from district shape and demographics can establish this showing.
Supporting sources
No. Maximizing the number of majority-minority districts pursuant to a Justice Department policy is not a compelling state interest. A state may have a compelling interest in remedying the effects of its own past intentional discrimination, but a bare desire to increase minority representation does not suffice.
Supporting sources
A test for determining whether Article 2 of the UCC governs a mixed contract involving both goods and services. The test asks whether the predominant factor or thrust of the transaction is the sale of goods, with services incidentally involved, or the rendition of services, with goods incidentally involved.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Courts examine whether the predominant factor or thrust of the transaction is the sale of goods with services incidentally involved or the rendition of services with goods incidentally involved. If the predominant factor is the sale of goods, Article 2 of the UCC applies to the entire contract.
Supporting sources
…transfer to a preferred district high school (without any consideration of race-conscious criteria). Choice, therefore, is the “predominant factor” in these plans. Race is not. See Grutter , supra , at 393 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (allowing consideration of race only if it does “not become a predominant factor”). Indeed, the…
…v. Lightfoot , 364 U. S. 339. Unconventional district shapes may constitute persuasive circumstantial evidence that race was the predominant factor in drawing the district lines. Pp. 652–658. Majority opinion Opinion of the Court by Justice O’Connor This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court…
…evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor
North Carolina created a district that stretched in a narrow, winding band across the state to connect distant Black populations. Residents sued under the Equal Protection Clause. The court found race was the predominant factor because the shape could not be explained by any traditional districting principle.
California housed new inmates by race for the first sixty days to prevent gang violence. An inmate challenged the policy. The court applied strict scrutiny after determining that race was the predominant factor in the assignment decision.
North Carolina drew two districts with fixed racial targets after census changes. Voters sued, pointing to the irregular shapes and internal documents showing racial percentages drove the lines. The court held race was the predominant factor and applied strict scrutiny.
North Carolina created a district with an irregular shape to achieve a majority-Black population. Challengers proved race was the predominant factor through shape and legislative history. The court invalidated the district because maximizing majority-minority districts was not a compelling interest.
Evidence includes an irregular or bizarre district shape that cannot be explained by traditional principles, low compactness scores, splitting of political subdivisions without justification, and internal legislative materials referencing racial targets or federal guidelines encouraging majority-minority districts.
Supporting sources
No. Plaintiffs need only show that race was the predominant factor, meaning it subordinated traditional districting principles. Race may be considered along with other factors, but once it predominates, strict scrutiny applies even if other considerations were also present.
Supporting sources