Shaw v. Reno, another racial
gerrymandering case I read this week, concerns majority-minority districts.
These are districts in which most of the population is non-white. In this case,
the court was ruling on North Carolina’s 1st and 12th
Congressional Districts. To understand the creation of these districts, one
must first understand section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
This section requires “preclearance”
for certain states and localities. Essentially, certain North Carolina counties
had to get approval from the U.S. Attorney General before changing any of their
voting procedures. This includes redistricting maps.
After the 1990 census,
North Carolina gained a seat in the U.S. House, because the state’s population
had increased. When the North Carolina General Assembly reapportioned the congressional
districts in 1991, they created one majority-African-American district (District
1). This map was thrown away, however, because the Assembly had failed to get preclearance
for it from the Attorney General. This meant they had to draw a new map, which
now included an oddly shaped second majority-African-American district, the 12th.
Five white North
Carolinians sued the Attorney General, saying that these two majority-minority
districts unconstitutionally discriminated against them. The court ruled in
their favor, finding that District 12 was drawn with race as the primary
concern.
This did not, however,
mean that majority-minority districts were inherently unconstitutional. The
court just stated that race could not be the only consideration in creating
districts. Compactness, contiguity, and political subdivisions (for example
census units) are not constitutionally-required considerations, but they are
legitimate and traditional goals in redistricting. Race is not, though it can be
a factor as long as other considerations (like those listed above) are the main
ones. That is the most important part of the Shaw v. Reno decision: that race
cannot be the main criterion in redistricting.
No comments:
Post a Comment