Court wipes out N.C.’s GOP-drawn districts
Justices vote 5-3 against maps that amplify racial divide
@richardjwolf USA TODAY WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled Monday that racial considerations pervaded the way North Carolina lawmakers drew congressional maps after the 2010 Census in order to maximize Republicans’ advantage.
The 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of decisions by the justices against the excessive use of race in redistricting, the decennial process of drawing new district lines for Congress and state legislatures. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court’s four liberal justices in striking down the state’s maps.
The high court in March demanded additional lower court review of 11 Virginia state legislature districts that Republicans designed with at least 55% black voting-age populations. That followed a decision against Alabama’s state legislative districts in 2015.
The North Carolina ruling upheld a federal district court decision that struck down the state’s 1st and 12th congressional districts because state lawmakers had packed African-American voters into them, thereby minimizing the influence of black voters in other districts. Kagan said the 1st district “produced boundaries amplifying divisions between blacks and whites,” while in the 12th, “race, not politics, accounted for the district’s reconfiguration.”
Justice Samuel Alito dissented on the 12th district, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. They agreed with state officials that the district was drawn to help Republicans, not to disenfranchise black voters. The high court has never struck down political maps drawn to help one party, though a case from Wisconsin is likely to offer a new test next year.
“Partisan gerrymandering is always unsavory, but that is not the issue here,” Alito wrote. “So long as the legislature chose to retain the basic shape of District 12 and to increase the number of Democrats in the district, it was inevitable that the Democrats brought in would be disproportionately black.”
Alito also criticized the majority decision for failing to stand by a 2001 case in which the high court upheld a similar configuration for that district. “A precedent of this court should not be treated like a disposable household item — say, a paper plate or napkin — to be used once and then tossed in the trash,” he said.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states draw districts enabling African Americans to elect their chosen representatives, lest black voters be spread too thinly across district lines. Two decades ago, Democrats used the law to demand so-called “majority-minority” districts.
Since Republicans took over many state legislatures in 2010, they have drawn districts with what African American and Democratic critics claim are more blacks than necessary, to keep surrounding districts whiter — and more Republican.
The Supreme Court has knocked down several of those maps.
“This is a watershed moment in the fight to end racial gerrymandering,” said Eric Holder, the former Democratic attorney general who chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Today’s ruling sends a stark message to legislatures and governors around the country: Racial gerrymandering is illegal and will be struck down in a court of law.”
Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation said the ruling compounds “the confused state of the law.”
“The Supreme Court says race can be a factor in redistricting but not the predominant factor, a rule that is so vague, so broad and so lacking in a definable legal standard that it is not really a rule at all,” he said.
The North Carolina case involved two congressional districts that had come before the court several times before; it was the fifth time for District 12, drawn in snakelike fashion along Interstate 85 after the 1990 Census to create a district capable of electing black lawmakers.
Kagan noted that the latest district lines added “a couple of knobs” and about 35,000 black voters, even though it has elected African Americans since 1992.
The court has not defined how much political advantage is too much.