shaw
et
al
hunt
governor
north
carolina
et
argued
december
decided
june
earlier
case
shaw
reno
held
appellants
whose
complaint
alleged
north
carolina
deliberately
segregated
voters
race
created
two
congressional
districts
districts
stated
claim
relief
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
remanded
consideration
district
held
although
north
carolina
redistricting
plan
classify
voters
race
classification
survived
strict
scrutiny
therefore
constitutional
narrowly
tailored
state
compelling
interests
complying
section
voting
rights
act
held
two
appellants
live
district
standing
continue
lawsuit
respect
district
remaining
appellants
reside
either
challenged
districts
provided
specific
evidence
personally
assigned
voting
districts
basis
race
lack
standing
see
hays
pp
north
carolina
plan
violates
equal
protection
clause
state
reapportionment
scheme
narrowly
tailored
serve
compelling
state
interest
pp
strict
scrutiny
applies
race
predominant
consideration
drawing
district
lines
legislature
subordinates
districting
principles
racial
considerations
miller
johnson
district
finding
north
carolina
general
assembly
deliberately
drew
district
effective
voting
majority
black
citizens
read
light
evidence
district
shape
demographics
legislature
objective
comports
miller
standard
order
justify
redistricting
plan
therefore
state
must
show
plan
pursuit
compelling
state
interest
also
narrowly
tailored
achieve
interest
pp
none
three
separate
compelling
interests
appellees
point
suffices
sustain
district
first
district
found
state
claimed
interest
eradicating
effects
past
discrimination
actually
precipitate
use
race
redistricting
plan
record
establish
finding
clearly
erroneous
second
asserted
interest
complying
section
voting
rights
act
justify
redistricting
since
creating
additional
district
urged
justice
department
granted
preclearance
required
correct
reading
section
see
miller
rejects
department
expansive
reading
section
authority
thereunder
requiring
maximize
number
districts
wherever
possible
see
third
district
drawn
remedy
narrowly
tailored
state
professed
interest
avoiding
liability
section
act
inter
alia
prohibits
dilution
voting
strength
members
minority
group
district
remedy
potential
section
violation
since
minority
group
must
shown
geographically
compact
establish
section
liability
see
thornburg
gingles
reasonably
suggested
district
contains
geographically
compact
population
race
appellees
singularly
unpersuasive
argue
district
may
drawn
anywhere
strong
basis
evidence
concluding
section
violation
exists
somewhere
state
district
drawn
avoid
section
liability
targets
injury
individuals
particular
area
minority
group
miller
reach
question
whether
compliance
act
compelling
state
interest
proper
circumstances
pp
supp
reversed
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
joined
parts
ii
iii
iv
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
end
syllabus
nos
ruth
shaw
et
appellants
james
hunt
governor
north
carolina
et
al
james
arthur
pope
et
appellants
james
hunt
governor
north
carolina
et
al
appeals
district
eastern
district
north
carolina
june
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
case
second
time
shaw
reno
shaw
held
plaintiffs
whose
complaint
alleged
deliberate
segregation
voters
separate
districts
basis
race
stated
claim
relief
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
remanded
case
consideration
district
held
north
carolina
redistricting
plan
classify
voters
race
classification
survived
strict
scrutiny
therefore
offend
constitution
hold
north
carolina
plan
violate
equal
protection
clause
state
reapportionment
scheme
narrowly
tailored
serve
compelling
state
interest
facts
set
detail
prior
opinion
shall
summarize
census
north
carolina
congressional
delegation
increased
members
state
general
assembly
adopted
reapportionment
plan
chapter
included
one
district
district
located
northeastern
region
state
sess
laws
ch
legislature
submitted
plan
attorney
general
preclearance
section
voting
rights
act
stat
amended
section
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
acting
attorney
general
behalf
objected
proposed
plan
failed
give
effect
black
native
american
voting
strength
southcentral
southeastern
part
state
opined
state
reasons
creating
second
district
appeared
pretextual
app
duly
chastened
legislature
revised
districting
scheme
include
second
district
extra
sess
laws
ch
new
plan
chapter
located
minority
district
district
piedmont
region
region
identified
justice
department
objection
letter
attorney
general
nonetheless
precleared
revised
plan
anyone
measure
boundary
lines
districts
unconventional
map
portrays
districts
deviance
far
better
words
see
appendix
opinion
shaw
supra
prior
opinion
describes
follows
first
two
districts
somewhat
hook
shaped
centered
northeast
portion
state
moves
southward
tapers
narrow
band
extensions
reaches
far
part
state
near
south
carolina
border
second
district
district
even
unusually
shaped
approximately
miles
long
much
length
wider
interstate
corridor
winds
fashion
tobacco
country
financial
centers
manufacturing
areas
gobbles
enough
enclaves
black
neighborhoods
shaw
supra
slip
citation
omitted
preliminary
matter
appellees
challenge
appellants
standing
continue
lawsuit
hays
recognized
plaintiff
resides
district
subject
claim
standing
challenge
legislation
created
district
plaintiff
outside
district
lacks
standing
absent
specific
evidence
personally
subjected
racial
classification
two
appellants
ruth
shaw
melvin
shimm
live
district
thus
standing
challenge
part
chapter
defines
district
see
miller
johnson
slip
remaining
appellants
reside
district
however
provided
specific
evidence
personally
assigned
voting
districts
basis
race
therefore
conclude
shaw
shimm
standing
respect
district
explained
miller
johnson
racially
gerrymandered
districting
scheme
like
laws
classify
citizens
basis
race
constitutionally
suspect
slip
see
also
shaw
slip
adarand
constructors
true
whether
reason
racial
classification
benign
purpose
remedial
shaw
supra
slip
adarand
supra
slip
applying
traditional
equal
protection
principles
context
delicate
task
miller
supra
slip
however
legislature
may
conscious
voters
races
without
using
race
basis
assigning
voters
districts
shaw
supra
slip
miller
slip
constitutional
wrong
occurs
race
becomes
dominant
controlling
consideration
slip
plaintiff
bears
burden
proving
motive
may
either
circumstantial
evidence
district
shape
demographics
direct
evidence
going
legislative
purpose
miller
supra
slip
detailed
account
process
led
enactment
challenged
plan
district
found
general
assembly
north
carolina
deliberately
drew
district
effective
voting
majority
black
citizens
appellees
urge
upon
us
view
finding
phrased
language
used
opinion
miller
johnson
supra
said
plaintiff
must
show
race
predominant
factor
motivating
legislature
decision
place
significant
number
voters
within
without
particular
district
slip
district
course
benefit
opinion
miller
time
wrote
opinion
preferable
analyzed
case
terms
standard
laid
miller
possible
circumstance
consequence
think
district
findings
read
light
evidence
comport
miller
standard
first
district
evidence
district
shape
demographics
observed
obvious
fact
district
shape
highly
irregular
geographically
objective
standard
conceived
fact
serpentine
district
dubbed
least
geographically
compact
district
nation
app
district
also
direct
evidence
legislature
objective
state
submission
preclearance
expressly
acknowledged
chapter
overriding
purpose
comply
dictates
attorney
general
december
letter
create
two
congressional
districts
effective
black
voting
majorities
app
emphasis
added
admission
confirmed
gerry
cohen
plan
principal
draftsman
testified
creating
two
districts
principal
reason
districts
tr
indeed
appellees
first
appearance
district
formally
concede
state
legislature
deliberately
created
two
districts
way
assure
majorities
shaw
barr
supp
ednc
concession
credited
district
remand
see
also
shaw
supra
slip
white
dissenting
state
made
mystery
intent
respond
attorney
general
objections
improving
minority
group
prospects
electing
candidate
choice
citation
omitted
miller
fail
see
district
reached
conclusion
race
predominant
factor
drawing
challenged
district
miller
supra
slip
dissent
justice
stevens
argues
strict
scrutiny
apply
state
respects
compl
ies
traditional
districting
principles
post
districting
respects
traditional
districting
principles
give
rise
constitutional
suspicion
miller
demonstrates
although
may
avoid
strict
scrutiny
complying
traditional
districting
principles
however
standard
announced
applied
miller
held
strict
scrutiny
applies
race
predominant
consideration
drawing
district
lines
legislature
subordinate
districting
principles
racial
considerations
miller
supra
slip
justice
stevens
articulates
correct
standard
dissent
post
fails
properly
apply
miller
standard
quite
different
one
justice
stevens
advances
examination
dissent
reasoning
demonstrates
dissent
explains
two
traditional
districting
criteria
work
determining
shape
placement
district
suggests
strict
scrutiny
apply
post
quarrel
dissent
claims
shaping
district
state
effectuated
interest
creating
one
rural
one
urban
district
partisan
politicking
actively
work
districting
process
legislature
addressed
interests
way
refute
fact
race
legislature
predominant
consideration
race
criterion
state
view
compromised
respecting
communities
interest
protecting
democratic
incumbents
came
play
decision
made
racial
classifications
antithetical
fourteenth
amendment
whose
central
purpose
eliminate
racial
discrimination
emanating
official
sources
mclaughlin
florida
richmond
croson
opinion
framers
fourteenth
amendment
desired
place
clear
limits
use
race
criterion
legislative
action
federal
courts
enforce
limitations
appreciating
racial
classification
causes
fundamental
injury
individual
rights
person
goodman
lukens
steel
recognized
certain
circumstances
drawing
racial
distinctions
permissible
governmental
body
pursuing
compelling
state
interest
state
however
constrained
may
pursue
end
means
chosen
accomplish
state
asserted
purpose
must
specifically
narrowly
framed
accomplish
purpose
wygant
jackson
bd
opinion
powell
north
carolina
therefore
must
show
redistricting
plan
pursuit
compelling
state
interest
also
districting
legislation
narrowly
tailored
achieve
compelling
interest
miller
slip
appellees
point
three
separate
compelling
interests
sustain
district
eradicate
effects
past
present
discrimination
comply
section
voting
rights
act
comply
section
act
address
turn
state
interest
remedying
effects
past
present
racial
discrimination
may
proper
case
justify
government
use
racial
distinctions
croson
interest
rise
level
compelling
state
interest
must
satisfy
two
conditions
first
discrimination
must
identified
discrimination
subdivisions
may
take
remedial
action
possess
evidence
past
present
discrimination
must
identify
discrimination
public
private
specificity
may
use
relief
generalized
assertion
past
discrimination
particular
industry
region
adequate
provides
guidance
legislative
body
determine
precise
scope
injury
seeks
remedy
opinion
accordingly
effort
alleviate
effects
societal
discrimination
compelling
interest
wygant
supra
second
institution
makes
racial
distinction
must
strong
basis
evidence
conclude
remedial
action
necessary
embarks
affirmative
action
program
plurality
opinion
emphasis
added
case
district
found
interest
ameliorating
past
discrimination
actually
precipitate
use
race
redistricting
plan
legislators
invoked
state
history
discrimination
argument
creating
second
district
found
members
enough
voting
power
caused
creation
second
district
basis
alone
appellees
support
claim
plan
drawn
remedy
past
discrimination
rely
passages
two
reports
prepared
litigation
historian
social
scientist
brief
appellees
gingles
et
al
citing
watson
race
politics
north
carolina
app
excerpts
kousser
years
redistricting
racial
discrimination
north
carolina
excerpts
obviously
reports
dated
march
general
assembly
enacted
chapter
little
suggest
legislature
considered
historical
events
data
reports
recount
beyond
individual
members
may
recalled
personal
experience
certainly
say
basis
reports
district
findings
point
clearly
erroneous
appellees
devote
efforts
arguing
redistricting
constitutionally
justified
state
duty
comply
voting
rights
act
district
agreed
held
compliance
section
act
case
compelling
state
interest
miller
expressly
left
open
question
whether
proper
circumstances
compliance
voting
rights
act
compelling
interest
miller
slip
whether
cases
compliance
voting
rights
act
standing
alone
provide
compelling
interest
independent
interest
remedying
past
discrimination
reach
question
find
creating
additional
district
required
correct
reading
section
district
drawn
remedy
narrowly
tailored
state
professed
interest
avoiding
section
liability
respect
section
voting
rights
act
believe
decision
miller
forecloses
argument
adopted
district
failure
engage
districting
violated
section
miller
considered
equal
protection
challenge
georgia
eleventh
congressional
district
appellees
georgia
contended
redistricting
plan
necessary
meet
justice
department
preclearance
demands
justice
department
interposed
objection
prior
plan
created
two
districts
held
challenged
congressional
plan
required
correct
reading
section
therefore
compliance
law
justify
districting
miller
supra
slip
ompliance
federal
antidiscrimination
laws
justify
districting
challenged
district
reasonably
necessary
constitutional
reading
application
laws
believe
conclusion
must
drawn
north
carolina
first
plan
chapter
indisputably
ameliorative
created
first
district
recent
history
thus
plan
even
fall
short
might
accomplished
terms
increasing
minority
representation
violate
section
unless
new
apportionment
discriminates
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
miller
supra
slip
quoting
days
section
role
justice
department
grofman
davidson
controversies
minority
voting
beer
miller
relies
purpose
prong
section
explain
department
preclearance
objections
alleging
north
carolina
pretextual
reasons
create
second
district
brief
amicus
curiae
find
government
position
insupportable
miller
supra
slip
general
assembly
submission
filed
chapter
explained
create
second
minority
district
among
goals
keep
precincts
whole
avoid
dividing
counties
two
districts
give
black
voters
fair
amount
influence
creating
least
one
district
majority
black
voter
registration
creating
substantial
number
districts
black
voters
exercise
significant
influence
choice
congressmen
app
submission
also
explained
detail
disadvantages
proposed
plans
see
balmer
congress
plan
econd
minority
district
effective
minority
voting
majority
depended
cohesion
black
native
american
voters
pattern
evident
plan
dramatically
decreased
black
influence
four
districts
memorandum
sent
department
justice
behalf
legislators
charge
redistricting
process
provided
still
reasons
state
decision
draw
two
minority
districts
urged
various
interested
parties
app
voorhees
dissenting
recognized
state
policy
adhering
districting
principles
instead
creating
many
districts
possible
support
inference
plan
discriminates
basis
race
color
violate
constitution
thus
provide
basis
section
justice
department
objection
miller
supra
slip
citations
omitted
appears
justice
department
pursuing
north
carolina
policy
maximizing
number
districts
pursued
georgia
see
miller
supra
slip
two
underwent
preclearance
processes
time
period
objection
letters
received
civil
rights
division
substantially
alike
app
miller
johnson
pp
north
carolina
legislator
recalled
told
assistant
attorney
general
percent
black
people
state
must
close
percent
black
congressmen
black
congressional
districts
state
app
see
also
deposition
senator
dennis
winner
explained
miller
maximization
policy
properly
grounded
section
department
authority
thereunder
miller
slip
utilizing
section
require
create
districts
wherever
possible
department
justice
expanded
authority
statute
beyond
congress
intended
upheld
reject
department
expansive
interpretation
section
slip
cf
johnson
de
grandy
slip
failure
maximize
measure
section
respect
section
appellees
contend
district
found
failure
enact
plan
second
district
left
state
lawsuit
section
precedent
establishes
plaintiff
may
allege
section
violation
district
manipulation
districting
lines
fragments
politically
cohesive
minority
voters
among
several
districts
packs
one
district
small
number
districts
thereby
dilutes
voting
strength
members
minority
population
de
grandy
supra
slip
prevail
claim
plaintiff
must
prove
minority
group
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
minority
group
politically
cohesive
white
majority
votes
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
thornburg
gingles
growe
emison
recognizing
three
gingles
preconditions
apply
section
challenge
district
must
also
consider
relevant
circumstances
must
ultimately
find
based
totality
circumstances
members
protected
class
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
section
see
de
grandy
supra
slip
assume
arguendo
purpose
resolving
case
compliance
section
compelling
interest
likewise
assume
arguendo
general
assembly
believed
second
district
needed
order
violate
section
legislature
time
acted
strong
basis
evidence
support
conclusion
hold
even
benefit
assumptions
north
carolina
plan
survive
strict
scrutiny
creation
district
narrowly
tailored
asserted
end
although
always
provided
precise
guidance
closely
means
racial
classification
must
serve
end
justification
compelling
interest
always
expected
legislative
action
substantially
address
achieve
avowed
purpose
see
miller
supra
slip
judiciary
retains
independent
obligation
ensure
state
actions
narrowly
tailored
achieve
compelling
interest
wygant
opinion
powell
means
chosen
accomplish
state
asserted
purpose
must
specifically
narrowly
framed
accomplish
purpose
opinion
powell
state
action
must
remedial
shaw
slip
reapportionment
plan
narrowly
tailored
goal
avoiding
retrogression
state
went
beyond
reasonably
necessary
avoid
retrogression
cf
missouri
jenkins
slip
regard
remedial
authority
federal
remedy
must
related
condition
alleged
offend
constitution
must
remedial
nature
must
designed
nearly
possible
restore
victims
discriminatory
conduct
position
occupied
absence
conduct
assume
avoidance
section
liability
compelling
state
interest
think
racial
classification
realize
goal
legislative
action
must
minimum
remedy
anticipated
violation
achieve
compliance
narrowly
tailored
district
remedy
potential
section
violation
discussed
plaintiff
must
show
minority
group
geographically
compact
establish
section
liability
one
looking
district
reasonably
suggest
district
contains
geographically
compact
population
race
see
therefore
district
sits
neither
wrong
remedy
growe
supra
appellees
defend
district
arguing
district
geographically
compact
however
rather
contend
majority
district
agreed
legislature
strong
basis
evidence
concluding
section
violation
exists
state
may
draw
district
anywhere
even
district
way
coincident
compact
gingles
district
long
racially
polarized
voting
exists
district
ultimately
drawn
tr
oral
arg
find
position
singularly
unpersuasive
see
district
drawn
avoid
section
liability
section
violation
proven
particular
area
flows
fact
individuals
area
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
section
vote
dilution
injuries
suffered
persons
remedied
creating
safe
district
somewhere
else
state
example
geographically
compact
cohesive
minority
population
lives
southeastern
north
carolina
justice
department
objection
letter
suggested
district
spans
piedmont
crescent
address
section
violation
black
voters
southeastern
region
still
suffering
precisely
injury
suffered
district
drawn
district
address
professed
interest
relieving
vote
dilution
much
less
narrowly
tailored
accomplish
goal
arguing
appellees
district
state
may
draw
district
anywhere
derives
misconception
claim
accept
district
may
placed
anywhere
implies
claim
hence
coordinate
right
undiluted
vote
cast
ballot
equal
among
voters
belongs
minority
group
individual
members
see
section
right
citizen
submits
district
fact
incorporate
substantial
portio
concentration
minority
voters
given
rise
section
claim
brief
amicus
curiae
specifically
government
claims
district
contains
heavy
concentration
african
americans
mecklenburg
county
urban
component
included
second
minority
opportunity
district
alternative
plans
ibid
portion
district
lies
mecklenburg
county
covers
district
see
exhibit
map
map
think
degree
incorporation
mean
district
substantially
addresses
section
violation
hold
therefore
district
narrowly
tailored
state
asserted
interest
complying
section
voting
rights
act
foregoing
reasons
judgment
district
reversed
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
parts
dissenting
explained
prior
occasions
convinced
aggressive
supervision
state
action
designed
accommodate
political
concerns
historically
disadvantaged
minority
groups
seriously
misguided
majority
attempt
enable
minority
participate
effectively
process
democratic
government
viewed
hostility
appropriate
oppressive
exclusionary
abuses
political
power
see
adarand
constructors
slip
stevens
dissenting
miller
johnson
slip
stevens
dissenting
shaw
reno
shaw
stevens
dissenting
wygant
jackson
bd
stevens
dissenting
cousins
city
council
chicago
stevens
dissenting
even
accept
refusal
recognize
distinction
two
vastly
different
kinds
situations
affirm
judgment
district
case
analyzes
case
raises
three
distinct
questions
north
carolina
decision
create
two
congressional
districts
majority
voters
subject
strict
constitutional
scrutiny
north
carolina
compelling
interest
creating
districts
creation
districts
narrowly
tailored
asserted
compelling
interest
inadequately
explains
answer
first
question
avoids
answering
second
concludes
answer
third
disposes
case
estimation
disposition
three
questions
unsatisfactory
commenting
majority
treatment
threshold
jurisdictional
issue
shall
discuss
separately
three
questions
outlined
mean
imply
endorse
majority
effort
apply
rigid
fashion
strict
scrutiny
analysis
developed
cases
far
different
type
mean
show
even
terms
majority
analysis
fails
convince
begin
noting
case
reveals
shaw
claim
useful
less
tool
protecting
racial
discrimination
means
state
residents
may
legislative
districting
federal
partisan
ends
case
republicans
apparent
record
real
grievance
represented
congress
democrats
prefer
represented
members
party
suggest
racial
identity
representatives
matter
concern
obvious
political
identity
critical
see
pope
blue
supp
wdnc
significantly
outset
legislative
deliberations
republican
party
oppose
creation
one
district
indeed
several
plans
proposed
republicans
state
legislature
provided
two
districts
supp
ednc
however
state
created
district
designed
preserve
democratic
incumbents
partisan
gerrymandering
suit
dismissed
failure
state
claim
intervenors
joined
racial
gerrymandering
challenge
plain
intervenors
using
allegations
impermissibly
districting
achieve
substantive
result
previous
less
emotionally
charged
partisan
gerrymandering
challenge
failed
secure
light
amorphous
nature
race
discrimination
claim
recognized
shaw
inevitable
allegations
racial
gerrymandering
become
standard
means
unsuccessful
candidates
parties
seek
obtain
judicially
obtain
electorally
even
plaintiffs
litigation
object
use
race
districting
process
reasons
partisan
political
advantage
majority
fails
explain
adequately
nature
constitutional
challenge
cognizable
equal
protection
clause
surprisingly
therefore
majority
explanation
plaintiffs
standing
bring
challenge
unconvincing
important
point
plaintiffs
claim
counsel
appellees
put
matter
succinctly
stated
case
gomillion
lightfoot
plaintiffs
prohibited
voting
municipal
elections
voters
remain
free
select
representatives
congress
thus
plaintiffs
purport
challenging
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
claim
shut
electoral
process
account
race
voting
power
diluted
consequence
districting
shaw
wrong
plaintiffs
suffered
entitles
call
upon
federal
redress
shaw
majority
construed
plaintiffs
claim
equal
protection
clause
forbids
districting
designed
solely
separate
voters
race
north
carolina
districting
process
violated
prohibition
ibid
even
claim
us
plaintiffs
standing
bring
record
shows
north
carolina
districting
plan
served
require
plaintiffs
share
district
voters
different
race
thus
injury
plaintiffs
suffered
extent
injury
stems
integrative
rather
segregative
effects
state
redistricting
plan
perhaps
cognizant
incongruity
counsel
plaintiffs
asserted
rather
abstract
objection
districting
oral
argument
suggested
plaintiffs
objected
use
race
districting
process
adverse
consequence
plaintiffs
account
race
suffered
persons
rather
state
failure
obey
constitutional
command
legislate
manner
conveyed
message
voters
across
state
two
black
districts
ten
white
districts
challenge
calls
mind
justice
frankfurter
memorable
characterization
suit
brought
colegrove
green
action
recover
damage
discriminatory
exclusion
plaintiff
rights
enjoyed
citizens
explained
basis
suit
private
wrong
wrong
suffered
illinois
polity
ibid
suits
type
necessarily
press
boundaries
jurisdiction
surpass
federal
called
upon
parse
among
varying
legislative
choices
political
structure
state
litigant
claim
ultimately
rests
difference
opinion
function
representative
government
rather
claim
discriminatory
exclusion
baker
carr
harlan
dissenting
reason
pause
cf
lujan
defenders
wildlife
even
objection
state
decision
forego
districting
cognizable
constitutional
provision
understand
provision
equal
protection
clause
reynolds
sims
careful
point
predominant
consideration
determining
whether
state
legislative
apportionment
scheme
constitutes
invidious
discrimination
violative
rights
asserted
equal
protection
clause
rights
allegedly
impaired
individual
personal
nature
addition
palmer
thompson
explained
legislation
violates
equal
protection
clause
challenged
legislation
affect
blacks
differently
whites
sure
commentators
noted
permitted
generalized
claims
harm
resulting
messages
secure
standing
establishment
clause
pildes
niemi
expressive
harms
bizarre
districts
voting
rights
evaluating
appearances
shaw
reno
rev
quite
strange
however
confer
similarly
broad
standing
equal
protection
clause
clause
protects
wrongs
definition
burden
persons
others
course
appears
individual
burdened
supposedly
insidious
messages
shaw
contends
follow
extremely
irregular
districting
presumably
received
equal
measure
state
residents
reason
claimed
violation
shared
right
districting
process
seem
implicate
equal
protection
clause
precisely
rests
neither
challenge
state
decision
distribute
burdens
benefits
unequally
claim
state
formally
equal
treatment
citizens
fact
stamps
persons
one
race
badge
inferiority
see
bush
vera
post
souter
dissenting
indeed
extent
person
burdened
state
districting
plan
geography
rather
race
seem
blame
state
chosen
subject
persons
particular
race
districting
rather
state
selected
certain
geographical
regions
white
assigned
districts
thus
distinguishes
residents
received
districting
process
geography
rather
racial
identity
surprisingly
therefore
shaw
emphasizes
race
members
plaintiff
class
irrelevant
shaw
absence
showing
indeed
allegation
person
harmed
account
race
decision
entertain
claim
plaintiffs
seem
emanate
less
equal
protection
clause
bar
racial
discrimination
unarticulated
recognition
new
substantive
due
process
right
districting
see
shaw
revealed
constitutional
claim
us
ultimately
depends
success
little
speculative
judicial
suppositions
societal
message
gleaned
districting
know
workable
constitutional
principle
however
discern
whether
message
conveyed
distressing
endorsement
racial
separatism
inspiring
call
integrate
political
process
result
know
basis
recognizing
right
districting
asserted
even
merit
constitutional
claim
least
clear
requires
recognition
new
constitutional
right
reason
suggestion
race
discrimination
precedent
somehow
compels
application
strict
scrutiny
disingenuous
fact
equal
protection
jurisprudence
requires
strict
scrutiny
claim
state
used
race
criterion
imposing
burdens
persons
others
mean
constitution
demands
similar
level
review
obtain
claim
state
used
race
impose
equal
burdens
polity
whole
upon
nonracially
defined
portion
thereof
latter
claim
state
may
well
deserve
deference
determines
racial
considerations
legitimate
context
results
unequal
treatment
take
one
example
believe
make
sense
apply
strict
scrutiny
federal
government
decision
require
citizens
identify
race
census
forms
even
though
requirement
force
citizens
classify
racially
even
though
requirement
arguably
convey
insidious
message
government
continuing
belief
race
remains
relevant
formulation
public
policy
course
federal
government
required
persons
residing
midwest
identify
race
census
form
doubt
persons
living
region
filled
forms
standing
bring
constitutional
challenge
doubt
however
whether
equal
protection
jurisprudence
require
federal
evaluate
claim
strict
scrutiny
case
unequal
treatment
resulted
state
decision
discriminate
basis
geography
selection
criterion
generally
thought
necessitate
close
judicial
review
majority
ignores
concerns
simply
applies
standing
test
set
forth
hays
apparent
assumption
test
adequately
identifies
personally
denied
equal
treatment
account
race
slip
hays
held
plaintiff
standing
challenge
state
use
race
districting
shaw
claims
lives
district
allegedly
constitutes
racial
gerrymander
shows
although
resides
outside
district
personally
subject
racial
classification
ante
basis
concludes
none
plaintiffs
action
standing
challenge
district
two
standing
challenge
district
ante
understand
distinction
drawn
hays
live
within
district
thought
relevant
voters
live
gerrymandered
district
suffered
personal
injuries
inflicted
districting
state
residents
injuries
said
representational
harms
sense
districting
may
cause
officeholders
represent
majority
race
district
stigmatic
harms
sense
may
promote
racial
hostility
hays
slip
shaw
even
accept
flawed
assumption
hays
test
serves
identify
voter
burdened
consequence
race
still
find
puzzling
inquiry
fails
explain
failed
explain
hays
evidence
showing
either
one
lives
allegedly
racially
gerrymandered
district
one
district
assignment
directly
resulted
racial
classification
suffice
distinguish
suffered
representational
stigmatic
harms
supposedly
follow
districting
representational
injuries
one
must
show
secure
standing
hays
demonstration
voter
race
led
assignment
particular
district
perhaps
relevant
jurisdictional
inquiry
surely
sufficient
satisfy
necessary
correlation
districting
assignments
inadequate
representation
see
davis
bandemer
opinion
white
indeed
assumption
correlation
exists
based
stereotypical
assumption
kind
representation
politicians
elected
minority
voters
capable
providing
see
miller
johnson
slip
stevens
dissenting
prove
representational
harms
hays
holds
needed
establish
standing
assert
shaw
claim
one
think
plaintiffs
required
put
forth
evidence
demonstrates
political
representatives
actually
unlikely
provide
effective
representation
voters
whose
interests
aligned
majority
race
district
record
reveals
plaintiff
made
showing
see
given
general
reluctance
hear
claims
founded
speculative
assertions
injury
understand
majority
concludes
speculative
possibility
districting
may
cause
plaintiffs
receive
less
complete
representation
suffices
create
cognizable
case
controversy
hays
slip
hays
stigmatic
harms
result
extreme
districting
suffice
secure
standing
fail
see
matters
whether
litigants
live
within
gerrymandered
district
placed
district
result
race
pointed
voters
north
carolina
seem
equally
affected
messages
balkanization
racial
apartheid
racially
gerrymandered
maps
supposedly
convey
cf
davis
concurring
judgment
even
districting
said
impose
personal
harms
stigmatic
harms
hays
identified
understand
voter
reputation
dignity
presumed
harmed
simply
resides
highly
integrated
voting
district
legislature
deliberately
created
certainly
background
social
facts
presume
stigmatic
harm
described
hays
shaw
amounts
found
cognizable
equal
protection
clause
brown
board
education
school
segregation
caused
students
others
stamped
badge
inferiority
account
race
see
shaw
souter
dissenting
sum
even
assumed
plaintiffs
case
asserted
personalized
injuries
recognized
hays
time
shaw
virtue
bare
allegations
racial
gerrymandering
surely
failed
prove
existence
injuries
degree
normally
require
stage
litigation
see
lujan
defenders
wildlife
thus
long
insists
treating
type
suit
traditional
equal
protection
claim
must
either
mean
take
broader
view
power
federal
courts
entertain
challenges
governmental
action
heretofore
adopted
see
allen
wright
cf
palmer
create
special
exception
general
jurisdictional
limitations
plaintiffs
us
suffice
say
charitably
assume
former
case
proceed
consider
merits
assumption
shaw
correctly
decided
ii
majority
concludes
district
test
triggering
strict
scrutiny
set
low
threshold
subjecting
state
districting
effort
rigorous
fatal
constitutional
review
ante
view
therefore
least
remand
case
allow
district
possesses
obvious
familiarity
record
superior
understanding
local
dynamics
make
inquiry
legislative
purpose
proper
test
triggering
strict
scrutiny
requires
although
share
majority
willingness
divine
degree
race
determined
precise
contours
district
forced
decide
matter
record
reject
majority
conclusion
fair
application
precedent
dictates
north
carolina
redistricting
effort
subject
strict
scrutiny
subsequent
district
decision
handed
miller
johnson
issued
summary
affirmance
dewitt
wilson
understand
miller
test
applied
dewitt
state
legislatures
may
take
racial
ethnic
characteristics
voters
account
drawing
district
boundaries
without
triggering
strict
scrutiny
long
race
predominant
consideration
guiding
deliberations
miller
johnson
slip
show
race
predominant
plaintiff
must
show
legislature
subordinated
traditional
districting
principles
racial
considerations
drawing
district
slip
see
also
slip
concurring
invoke
strict
scrutiny
plaintiff
must
show
state
relied
race
substantial
disregard
customary
traditional
districting
practices
dewitt
wilson
supp
ed
cal
aff
part
dism
part
declining
apply
strict
scrutiny
state
complied
traditional
districting
principles
indeed
principal
opinion
bush
vera
post
issued
day
makes
clear
deliberate
consideration
race
drawing
district
lines
invite
constitutional
suspicion
opinion
explains
precedents
require
application
strict
scrutiny
cases
intentional
creation
districts
bush
post
rather
strict
scrutiny
apply
upon
demonstration
race
sake
districting
principles
legislature
dominant
controlling
rationale
drawing
district
lines
ibid
quoting
miller
slip
legitimate
consideration
race
districting
decision
usually
inevitable
voting
rights
act
communities
racially
mixed
shaw
souter
dissenting
decisions
miller
dewitt
bush
quite
properly
declined
deem
districting
subject
strict
scrutiny
unlike
many
situations
consideration
race
necessarily
gives
rise
constitutional
suspicion
see
batson
kentucky
adarand
constructors
precedents
sensibly
recognized
context
redistricting
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
race
used
particularly
determinative
manner
strict
constitutional
scrutiny
obtain
cf
regents
univ
cal
bakke
higher
threshold
triggering
strict
scrutiny
comports
fact
shared
representational
stigmatic
harms
shaw
purports
guard
likely
occur
state
subordinates
districting
principles
racial
goal
see
shaw
voorhees
dissenting
pildes
niemi
shaw
entirely
consistent
holdings
districting
respects
traditional
districting
principles
give
rise
constitutional
suspicion
district
noted
shaw
expressly
reserved
question
whether
intentional
creation
districts
without
always
gives
rise
equal
protection
claim
quoting
shaw
shaw
held
equal
protection
claim
lie
result
allegations
suggesting
state
districting
extremely
irregular
face
rationally
viewed
effort
segregate
races
purposes
voting
without
regard
traditional
districting
principles
emphasis
added
moreover
miller
belies
conclusion
strict
scrutiny
must
apply
deliberate
attempts
draw
districts
equal
protection
clause
provide
practical
limitation
state
power
engage
districting
although
georgia
argued
complied
traditional
districting
principles
miller
majority
little
difficulty
concluding
state
explanations
implausible
miller
johnson
thus
miller
demonstrates
although
may
avoid
strict
scrutiny
complying
traditional
districting
principles
may
proffering
pretextual
explanations
maps
notion
conscientious
federal
judges
able
distinguish
explanations
pretextual
ones
hardly
foreign
race
discrimination
jurisprudence
variety
contexts
employment
juror
selection
required
plaintiffs
demonstrate
defendant
action
understood
impermissibly
also
defendant
assertedly
explanation
action
fact
pretext
racial
discrimination
purkett
elem
slip
mary
honor
center
hicks
similarly
understand
shaw
miller
dewitt
bush
require
plaintiffs
prove
state
respect
traditional
districting
principles
drawing
districts
see
bush
post
holding
present
record
shows
race
predominant
consideration
creation
district
relies
two
pieces
evidence
state
admission
overriding
purpose
create
two
congressional
districts
effective
black
voting
majorities
ante
geographically
shape
district
ante
view
evidence
suffice
trigger
strict
scrutiny
demanding
test
miller
establishes
miller
johnson
slip
concurring
north
carolina
admission
reveals
intended
create
second
district
says
nothing
whether
subordinated
traditional
districting
principles
drawing
district
conclude
federal
law
requires
districts
little
choice
give
overriding
weight
concern
indeed
voinovich
quilter
explained
evidence
showed
ohio
chief
mapmaker
preferred
federal
state
law
believed
two
conflict
raise
inference
intentional
discrimination
demonstrates
obedience
supremacy
clause
constitution
reason
previously
held
concessions
north
carolina
suffice
trigger
strict
scrutiny
cf
bush
post
thus
state
concession
little
significance
district
noncompact
appearance
also
fails
show
north
carolina
engaged
suspect
districting
federal
statutory
constitutional
requirement
state
electoral
boundaries
conform
particular
ideal
geographic
compactness
addition
although
north
carolina
constitution
requires
electoral
districts
state
elective
office
contiguous
require
geographically
compact
art
ii
section
given
numerous
written
geographical
compactness
requirements
state
constitutions
north
carolina
omission
score
noteworthy
see
grofman
criteria
districting
social
science
perspective
ucla
rev
reveals
north
carolina
creation
geographically
noncompact
district
mark
deviation
prevailing
state
districting
principle
thus
serpentine
character
district
may
give
rise
inference
traditional
districting
principles
subordinated
race
determining
boundaries
fairly
said
prove
conclusion
light
clear
evidence
demonstrating
explanations
district
tortured
shape
see
infra
fundamental
flaw
majority
conclusion
racial
concerns
predominantly
explain
creation
district
evidence
shape
intent
relied
majority
overcome
basic
fact
north
carolina
draw
districts
order
comply
justice
department
finding
federal
law
required
creation
two
districts
goal
straightforwardly
accomplished
simply
adopting
attorney
general
recommendation
draw
geographically
compact
district
southeastern
portion
state
addition
district
already
drawn
northeastern
piedmont
regions
see
shaw
legislature
chose
draw
districts
instead
surely
suggests
something
desire
create
district
took
precedence
reason
case
seem
present
version
hypothetical
principal
opinion
bush
suggests
pose
constitutional
otherwise
compact
district
misshapen
nonracial
political
manipulation
bush
post
evidence
suggests
race
played
role
legislature
decision
choose
winding
contours
district
cartographically
pleasant
boundaries
proposed
attorney
general
rather
record
reveals
two
traditional
districting
criteria
determined
district
shape
interest
ensuring
incumbents
remain
residents
districts
previously
represented
interest
placing
predominantly
rural
voters
one
district
predominantly
urban
voters
another
see
also
miller
johnson
considering
whether
communities
interest
preserved
white
weiser
establishing
incumbency
protection
legitimate
districting
principle
unlike
north
carolina
given
chief
executive
power
veto
enactments
legislature
thus
even
though
voters
elected
republican
governor
democratic
majority
legislature
control
districting
process
democrats
first
decided
adopt
plan
arguably
violated
section
voting
rights
act
gave
rise
attorney
general
objection
section
also
democrats
rejected
republican
party
maps
contained
two
districts
created
many
districts
majority
residents
registered
republicans
race
rather
incumbency
protection
dominant
consideration
seems
highly
unlikely
democrats
drawn
bizarre
district
rather
accepting
compact
options
clearly
available
race
rather
politics
predominant
consideration
democrats
accepted
republican
plan
thereby
satisfying
attorney
general
avoiding
significant
risk
liability
well
attack
mounted
plaintiffs
case
instead
detailed
findings
district
demonstrate
legislature
deliberately
crafted
districting
plan
accommodate
needs
democratic
incumbents
democrats
remain
control
districting
process
remand
case
interesting
see
whether
willing
sacrifice
one
districts
order
create
least
two
districts
effective
minority
voting
majorities
review
history
revealed
findings
district
persuades
political
considerations
probably
take
priority
racial
considerations
immediate
future
surely
process
rejecting
republican
plan
ultimately
adopting
plan
challenged
case
deliberate
effort
consolidate
urban
voters
one
district
rural
voters
another
also
explains
district
highly
irregular
shape
district
drawn
members
public
well
legislators
urged
observance
distinctive
urban
rural
communities
interest
prime
consideration
general
redistricting
process
result
legislature
naturally
attracted
plan
although
less
aesthetically
pleasing
included
district
links
state
major
urban
centers
district
population
predominantly
lives
cities
populations
less
moreover
record
reveals
district
lines
drawn
order
unite
community
whose
political
tradition
quite
distinct
one
defines
voters
coastal
plain
district
surrounds
ibid
indeed
two
plans
less
torturous
boundaries
thought
unsatisfactory
precisely
unite
communities
interest
tr
significantly
irregular
contours
district
track
state
main
interstate
highway
located
entirely
within
culturally
distinct
piedmont
crescent
region
clearly
district
drawn
around
community
defined
actual
shared
interests
rather
racial
demography
miller
johnson
slip
see
also
shaw
dewitt
wilson
recognizing
districts
functionally
compact
surrounded
communit
ies
interest
light
majority
decision
remand
proper
application
miller
test
understand
condemn
drawing
district
given
two
justifications
shape
sure
choosing
district
snakes
rather
sits
north
carolina
put
premium
geographical
compactness
understand
matter
light
evidence
shows
districting
considerations
determinative
iii
majority
analysis
compelling
interest
issue
nicely
demonstrates
problem
parsing
legislative
motive
context
majority
posits
legislature
compelling
interest
drawing
district
desire
avoid
liability
section
voting
rights
act
yet
addresses
question
whether
north
carolina
compelling
interest
first
concludes
racial
purpose
dominated
state
districting
effort
seems
state
true
purpose
serve
compelling
interest
staving
costly
litigation
complying
federal
law
correct
say
racially
discriminatory
purpose
controlled
accurate
conclusion
state
took
race
account
extent
necessary
meet
requirements
carefully
thought
federal
statute
see
voinovich
quilter
majority
implicit
equation
intentional
consideration
race
order
comply
voting
rights
act
intentional
racial
discrimination
reveals
inadequacy
framework
adopts
considering
constitutionality
districting
however
even
assume
strict
scrutiny
applies
thus
makes
sense
consider
question
share
majority
hesitancy
concluding
north
carolina
compelling
interest
drawing
district
view
record
identifies
merely
one
least
three
acceptable
reasons
may
motivated
legislators
favor
creation
two
districts
three
reasons
easily
satisfy
judicially
created
requirement
state
legislature
decision
supported
compelling
state
interest
particularly
case
alleged
injury
disadvantaged
majority
voters
tenuous
first
legislators
felt
sorry
history
race
relations
north
carolina
past
decades
sufficient
reason
making
easier
black
leaders
participate
legislative
process
represent
state
congress
even
history
provide
kind
precise
guidance
justify
certain
specific
affirmative
action
programs
particular
industries
see
ante
surely
provides
adequate
basis
decision
facilitate
election
representatives
previously
disadvantaged
minority
class
state
legislators
far
likely
familiar
role
race
plays
electoral
politics
role
plays
hiring
decisions
within
discrete
industries
moreover
given
north
carolina
legislature
recent
experience
voting
rights
litigation
see
thornburg
gingles
well
fact
state
districts
covered
jurisdictions
attorney
general
directly
monitors
result
prior
discriminatory
practices
see
section
ed
less
reason
assume
state
legislative
judgments
review
based
unwarranted
generalizations
may
true
contexts
thus
even
desire
correct
past
discrimination
drive
legislative
decision
draw
two
districts
plainly
constituted
legitimate
significant
additional
factor
supporting
decision
second
regardless
whether
section
act
actually
violated
believe
state
interest
avoiding
litigation
necessary
overcome
attorney
general
objection
original
plan
provides
acceptable
reason
creating
second
district
entirely
proper
state
whose
past
practices
subjected
obligation
set
forth
section
presume
attorney
general
construction
act
correct
take
corrective
action
rather
challenging
moreover
even
state
interest
avoiding
challenge
might
succeeded
constitute
sufficient
justification
decision
draw
district
state
plainly
interest
complying
finding
attorney
general
reasonably
believed
successfully
challenged
majority
disagrees
relying
analysis
miller
johnson
slip
reliance
misplaced
miller
concluded
georgia
simply
acceded
attorney
general
unreasonable
construction
section
without
performing
independent
assessment
validity
ibid
contrast
district
found
factual
matter
legislature
independent
assessment
reasons
attorney
general
denial
preclearance
led
reasonable
conclusion
district
plan
violate
purpose
prong
section
result
accept
conclusion
unreasonable
state
believe
decision
draw
district
subject
successful
attack
purpose
prong
section
ante
acknowledge
north
carolina
sought
preclearance
asserted
nondiscriminatory
reasons
deciding
draw
second
district
see
vorhees
dissenting
careful
reflection
however
legislature
concluded
reasons
likely
suffice
federal
action
challenge
attorney
general
ruling
district
found
conclusion
reasonable
mystified
finding
deserve
acceptance
understand
willingness
credit
state
declarations
nondiscriminatory
purpose
context
ante
light
unwillingness
accept
north
carolina
explanations
decision
draw
district
ante
third
regardless
possible
outcome
litigation
alleging
section
voting
rights
act
violated
plan
ensured
election
white
legislators
state
congressional
districts
interest
avoiding
expense
unpleasantness
litigation
certainly
legitimate
substantial
legislature
reasonably
feared
possibility
successful
section
challenge
credibly
denied
course
redistricting
debate
numerous
maps
presented
showing
blacks
constitute
percent
population
two
districts
district
found
plans
demonstrated
state
population
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
two
congressional
districts
moreover
attorney
general
denied
preclearance
ground
north
carolina
created
second
district
reasonable
standard
geographically
compact
shaw
maps
prepared
plaintiffintervenors
litigation
conclusively
demonstrate
two
compact
districts
indeed
drawn
exh
even
many
maps
proposing
two
districts
particularly
compact
legislature
reasonably
concluded
federal
might
determined
provided
basis
viable
vote
dilution
suit
pursuant
thornburg
gingles
conclusion
particularly
reasonable
light
fact
gingles
case
fresh
minds
many
north
carolina
state
legislators
state
challenged
plaintiffs
section
claim
pointing
oddly
configured
lines
defined
proposed
districts
see
gingles
edmisten
supp
ednc
know
north
carolina
defense
section
liability
proved
unsuccessful
instance
even
though
district
acknowledged
district
specifically
suggested
plaintiffs
viable
one
obviously
model
aesthetic
tidiness
finally
even
record
shows
voters
comprised
percent
population
plan
containing
two
compact
districts
record
reveals
possible
drawn
map
containing
one
compact
district
comprised
percent
population
another
compact
district
reason
large
presence
native
americans
far
constituted
largest
racial
group
exh
given
recent
emphasis
considering
totality
circumstances
section
cases
position
rebuke
state
concluding
percent
district
provide
defense
viable
gingles
challenge
surely
one
percent
population
see
johnson
de
grandy
slip
voinovich
quilter
rural
west
tennessee
affairs
council
mcwherter
supp
wd
aff
iv
judgment
state
new
plan
successfully
avoids
potential
litigation
entirely
reason
must
also
take
form
remedy
unproven
violation
thus
fact
section
violation
proven
territory
comprises
district
show
district
fails
serve
compelling
state
interest
shows
federal
constrained
article
iii
power
require
north
carolina
draw
district
axiomatic
state
authority
institute
districting
plan
federal
voinovich
quilter
district
protect
north
carolina
liability
seems
clear
record
gives
indication
potential
section
claimants
interested
challenging
plan
contains
district
moreover
legal
matter
north
carolina
stronger
position
defend
section
lawsuit
district
without
johnson
de
grandy
expressly
least
context
districting
plans
plaintiff
make
prima
facie
case
vote
dilution
section
unless
demonstrate
proposed
map
contains
districts
state
slip
creating
plan
two
districts
state
seem
precluded
potential
litigants
satisfying
precondition
addition
satisfaction
gingles
preconditions
entitle
individual
minority
voter
inclusion
district
may
conclude
state
must
create
district
considers
totality
circumstances
remiss
failed
take
account
state
drawn
districts
proportional
minority
population
include
portions
minority
community
individual
minority
plaintiff
resides
indeed
recent
decisions
compel
courts
perform
calculus
see
johnson
de
grandy
slip
voinovich
quilter
see
also
african
american
voting
rights
legal
defense
fund
villa
finally
north
carolina
chosen
means
avoiding
liability
impose
none
burdens
third
parties
made
wary
voluntary
state
action
past
white
employees
applicants
stand
lose
jobs
account
race
result
north
carolina
actions
fact
white
voters
risk
votes
unlawfully
diluted
north
carolina
chosen
means
require
people
races
placed
districts
otherwise
assigned
even
assuming
burden
onerous
results
racial
considerations
rise
level
injury
justifies
federal
intruding
state
discretion
formulate
plan
complies
voting
rights
act
fact
extent
plaintiffs
cases
premise
standing
representational
harms
suffer
see
supra
state
decision
locate
district
outside
area
suffers
acute
racial
bloc
voting
seem
diminish
likelihood
representatives
districts
serve
interests
minority
voters
representative
district
suffer
racial
bloc
voting
safely
ignore
interests
voters
either
race
respect
majority
narrow
tailoring
requirement
forcing
remedy
perceived
section
violations
drawing
district
around
area
gingles
preconditions
satisfied
perverse
consequence
requiring
inflict
harm
supposedly
renders
racial
gerrymandering
challenges
constitutionally
cognizable
although
believe
judicial
inquiry
narrow
tailoring
either
necessary
appropriate
case
foregoing
discussion
reveals
narrow
tailoring
requirement
fashioned
pure
judicial
invention
unfairly
deprives
legislature
sovereign
state
traditional
discretion
determining
boundaries
electoral
districts
analysis
gives
rise
unfortunate
suggestion
state
fears
section
lawsuit
must
draw
precise
district
believes
federal
power
impose
proposition
confounds
basic
principles
federalism
forces
imagine
legally
correct
outcome
lawsuit
even
filed
proposition
also
odds
course
litigation
led
gingles
case
plaintiffs
proposed
number
oddly
configured
districts
prove
vote
dilution
claim
implementing
remedy
section
violation
federal
wisely
permitted
north
carolina
propose
remedial
districts
many
highly
irregular
dimension
indeed
peculiar
shapes
concocted
state
gingles
plaintiffs
challenged
grounds
constituted
racial
gerrymanders
failed
remedy
violations
given
rise
need
creation
reflected
grudging
responses
designed
protect
incumbent
officeholders
gingles
edmisten
although
district
gingles
acknowledged
state
plan
one
implemented
nonetheless
concluded
plan
constituted
reasonable
exercise
state
legislative
judgment
state
legislature
primary
jurisdiction
legislative
apportionment
redistricting
must
include
right
free
judicial
rejection
implement
state
policies
may
fail
remedy
fullest
extent
possible
voting
rights
violations
originally
found
dramatic
contrast
today
rejects
north
carolina
plan
provide
precise
remedy
might
ordered
federal
even
though
satisfies
potential
plaintiffs
furthers
legislative
ends
incumbency
protection
preservation
distinct
communities
interest
essentially
serves
insulate
state
successful
statutory
challenge
small
irony
fact
decision
intrude
state
districting
process
comes
response
lawsuit
brought
behalf
white
voters
suffered
history
exclusion
north
carolina
political
process
whose
claims
harm
best
rooted
speculative
stereotypical
assumptions
kind
representation
likely
receive
candidates
neighbors
chosen
hesitation
concluding
north
carolina
decision
adopt
plan
white
voters
majority
state
districts
violate
equal
protection
clause
respectfully
dissent
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
views
case
substantially
expressed
dissent
bush
vera
post
footnotes
together
pope
et
al
hunt
governor
north
carolina
et
also
appeal
complaint
also
named
attorney
general
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
division
defendants
district
granted
federal
officials
motion
dismiss
shaw
barr
supp
ednc
judgment
appealed
justice
stevens
dismiss
complaint
lack
standing
post
places
dissent
justice
stevens
disagreement
prior
decisions
shaw
supra
hays
miller
johnson
decision
justice
stevens
challenged
standing
analysis
finding
cognizable
injury
hays
supra
stevens
concurring
judgment
miller
supra
stevens
dissenting
justice
white
justice
souter
advanced
many
arguments
shaw
see
shaw
supra
slip
white
dissenting
id
slip
souter
dissenting
position
repeatedly
rejected
see
shaw
supra
miller
supra
hays
supra
dissent
incorrectly
reads
miller
demonstrating
although
may
avoid
strict
scrutiny
complying
traditional
districting
principles
may
proffering
pretextual
explanations
post
miller
plainly
although
compliance
traditional
districting
principles
compactness
contiguity
respect
political
subdivisions
may
well
suffice
refute
claim
racial
gerrymandering
state
make
refutation
factors
subordinated
racial
objectives
miller
slip
citation
omitted
emphasis
added
justice
stevens
discerns
three
reasons
believes
may
motivated
legislators
favor
creation
two
minority
districts
believes
together
amount
compelling
state
interest
post
explain
racial
classification
withstand
strict
scrutiny
based
upon
speculation
may
motivated
legislature
compelling
interest
state
must
show
alleged
objective
legislature
actual
purpose
discriminatory
classification
see
mississippi
univ
women
hogan
legislature
must
strong
basis
evidence
support
justification
implements
classification
see
infra
even
proper
factual
basis
existed
believe
three
reasons
justice
stevens
proffers
separately
combined
amount
compelling
interest
first
dissent
seems
acknowledge
initial
sorry
history
race
relations
north
carolina
post
drive
decision
create
minority
districts
presumably
reasons
discuss
infra
dissent
contends
next
acceptable
reason
creating
second
district
state
interest
avoiding
litigation
necessary
overcome
attorney
general
objection
section
post
true
however
miller
johnson
wrongly
decided
rejected
contention
complying
justice
department
preclearance
objection
compelling
interest
miller
supra
slip
necessarily
follows
avoiding
litigation
required
overcome
department
objection
compelling
interest
dissent
final
interest
avoiding
expense
unpleasantness
section
litigation
regardless
possible
outcome
litigation
post
broadly
assume
arguendo
state
may
compelling
interest
complying
properly
interpreted
voting
rights
act
infra
state
must
also
strong
basis
evidence
see
shaw
supra
quoting
richmond
croson
believing
violating
act
interest
avoiding
meritless
lawsuits
examples
limitation
application
see
wygant
plurality
concluded
remedying
societal
discrimination
promoting
role
models
students
compelling
interest
richmond
croson
attempts
distinguish
case
miller
relying
district
finding
north
carolina
conducted
independent
reassessment
chapter
found
department
objection
legally
factually
supportable
brief
amicus
curiae
supp
case
reassessment
legislature
determination
may
susceptible
section
challenge
even
general
assembly
properly
reached
conclusion
doubt
showing
discriminatory
effect
section
alone
support
claim
discriminatory
purpose
section
even
discriminatory
purpose
shown
means
avoiding
violation
also
doubt
prospect
violating
purpose
prong
section
justify
redistricting
plan
one
implemented
north
carolina
suggest
governmental
interest
eradicating
effects
past
discrimination
action
necessarily
achieve
fully
task
narrowly
tailored
justice
stevens
dissent
argues
matter
district
possibly
remedy
section
violation
believes
state
plan
avoid
section
liability
post
support
justice
stevens
relies
decision
johnson
de
grandy
reads
say
plaintiff
make
prima
facie
case
vote
dilution
section
unless
demonstrate
proposed
plan
contains
districts
state
id
citing
de
grandy
supra
slip
dissent
reading
flawed
omission
de
grandy
presumed
minority
districts
drawn
state
plan
lawfully
drawn
indeed
expressly
stated
vote
dilution
claim
section
requires
possibility
creating
existing
number
reasonably
compact
districts
sufficiently
large
minority
population
elect
candidates
choice
de
grandy
supra
slip
emphasis
added
mean
section
plaintiff
right
placed
district
violation
statute
shown
retain
broad
discretion
drawing
districts
comply
mandate
section
voinovich
quilter
growe
emison
tr
oral
arg
counsel
went
far
liken
state
districting
plan
water
fountains
available
citizens
races
nevertheless
labeled
black
white
argued
state
redistricting
map
constituted
unlawful
racial
classification
way
signs
fountains
although
neither
racial
classification
deprive
person
tangible
fountains
effective
political
representation
remain
equally
available
persons
unconstitutional
fact
state
espoused
racial
classification
publicly
majority
stated
consistently
held
plaintiff
raising
generally
available
grievance
harm
every
citizen
interest
proper
application
constitution
laws
seeking
relief
directly
tangibly
benefits
public
state
article
iii
case
controversy
lujan
defenders
wildlife
decision
powers
ohio
batson
kentucky
contrary
held
defendants
standing
matter
race
assert
rights
jurors
deprived
race
benefit
available
others
voter
litigation
shown
either
uniquely
denied
otherwise
generally
available
benefit
account
race
anyone
else
explained
even
hays
test
showed
much
still
demonstrate
state
used
geography
rather
race
select
citizens
deprived
districting
process
particularly
true
author
district
opinion
also
author
district
opinion
gingles
edmisten
supp
ednc
aff
part
rev
part
thornburg
gingles
example
state
argued
drew
district
review
follow
precinct
lines
found
precinct
lines
relied
happened
facilitate
state
effort
achieve
particular
racial
makeup
similarly
state
argued
district
drawn
order
ensure
communities
interest
kept
within
single
district
found
communities
found
within
district
boundaries
see
miller
johnson
slip
unclear
whether
majority
believes
combination
two
pieces
evidence
satisfies
miller
whether
either
one
suffice
citing
trial
deposition
testimony
majority
also
relies
statement
north
carolina
chief
mapmaker
gerry
cohen
creation
district
principal
reason
configurations
district
district
ante
cohen
complete
explanation
principal
reason
create
two
majority
black
districts
communities
interest
within
one
tr
cohen
admitted
therefore
state
intentionally
drew
district
respect
traditional
districting
principles
moreover
cohen
admission
deposition
pertained
district
app
finally
explained
deposition
reasons
also
explained
district
configuration
ibid
absent
showing
reasons
cohen
admission
show
north
carolina
subordinated
districting
criteria
drawing
district
shows
need
comply
federal
law
critical
dewitt
wilson
supp
ed
cal
example
state
conceded
compliance
section
voting
rights
act
constituted
one
unavoidable
limitation
redistricting
process
nevertheless
affirmed
district
conclusion
strict
scrutiny
apply
state
gave
significant
weight
several
considerations
meeting
goal
moreover
miller
johnson
applied
strict
scrutiny
concluded
state
considered
race
adding
voters
district
hold
georgia
general
admissions
desire
comply
federal
law
sufficed
slip
state
constitution
sets
forth
limitation
districting
federal
offices
moreover
legislator
guide
north
carolina
legislative
congressional
redistricting
points
state
law
prohibition
dividing
counties
formulating
state
electoral
districts
eliminated
see
legislator
guide
north
carolina
legislative
congressional
redistricting
indeed
state
guide
redistricting
specifically
informed
state
legislators
compactness
little
legal
significance
neither
state
federal
constitution
requires
districts
compact
critics
often
refer
lack
compactness
particular
district
group
districts
sign
gerrymandering
ever
struck
plan
merely
basis
appear
compact
although
geometric
methods
measuring
compactness
area
methods
recognized
judicial
standards
evaluating
compactness
districts
recent
decision
davis
bandemer
mentions
districts
possible
sign
gerrymandering
makes
clear
irregular
shapes
alone
invalidate
redistricting
plan
ibid
state
decision
give
little
weight
district
look
map
entirely
justifiable
although
voter
clearly
interest
district
whose
members
share
similar
interests
concerns
interest
need
often
vindicated
drawing
districts
attractive
shapes
districts
perceived
extreme
irregularity
entirely
function
artificial
perspective
unrelated
common
goings
comings
mapmaker
wholly
imaginary
vertical
perspective
range
citizen
may
well
find
district
featureless
shape
aesthetically
bizarre
grotesque
ugly
back
ground
viewing
things
normal
horizontal
perspective
irregularity
outline
exact
volume
district
resides
surely
matter
great
practical
consequence
conduct
supp
ednc
vein
doubt
residents
massachusetts
receive
less
effective
representation
counterparts
perfectly
rectangular
wyoming
voting
power
residents
hawaii
way
impaired
virtue
fact
state
even
contiguous
ironic
despite
clear
indications
party
politics
explain
district
odd
shape
affirmed
district
dismissal
plaintiffs
partisan
gerrymandering
claim
see
pope
blue
interestingly
justice
department
concluded
state
impermissible
desire
favor
white
incumbents
voters
explained
north
carolina
refusal
create
second
district
thus
gave
rise
violation
purpose
prong
section
voting
rights
act
see
shaw
course
white
plaintiffs
us
standing
object
district
similar
grounds
although
majority
asserts
north
carolina
subordinated
traditional
districting
principles
racial
concerns
ace
criterion
state
view
compromised
ante
evidence
suggests
north
carolina
sacrificed
traditional
districting
principles
order
draw
second
district
rather
record
reveals
state
chose
district
options
plan
remain
faithful
traditional
districting
criteria
strict
scrutiny
applies
even
state
draws
district
respects
traditional
districting
principles
see
state
ever
create
district
order
fulfill
obligations
voting
rights
act
without
inviting
constitutional
suspicion
thought
demanding
standard
miller
established
miller
johnson
slip
concurring
well
summary
affirmance
dewitt
reflected
determination
constrained
although
attorney
general
reno
endorsed
position
taken
republican
administration
male
predecessor
refused
preclear
state
original
plan
majority
surely
correct
stating
threat
lawsuit
however
unlikely
succeed
constitute
compelling
interest
ante
follow
state
compelling
interest
avoiding
litigation
substantial
challenge
course
district
found
north
carolina
premised
decision
draw
minority
district
reasonable
conclusion
otherwise
subject
successful
section
challenge
meritless
one
ibid
interestingly
although
thornburg
gingles
held
section
plaintiffs
must
demonstrate
live
compact
districts
affirmed
district
found
plaintiffs
proposed
districts
contiguous
compact
arguably
therefore
state
reasonably
concluded
maps
proposing
district
provided
foundation
viable
section
suit
discussion
compact
compact
districts
must
see
karlan
maps
misreadings
role
geographic
compactness
racial
vote
dilution
litigation
harv
civ
lib
rev
see
also
dillard
baldwin
county
bd
supp
md
houston
lafayette
county
moreover
cohen
state
chief
mapmaker
testified
trial
statewide
elections
native
americans
southeastern
portion
north
carolina
voted
candidates
tr
majority
assertion
de
grandy
requires
plaintiff
show
reasonably
compact
districts
drawn
seem
expand
dramatically
state
potential
liability
section
ante
thought
state
drawn
three
districts
one
reasonably
compact
two
straggled
order
preserve
certain
distinctive
communities
interest
least
immune
challenge
single
plaintiff
bearing
map
proposing
draw
two
compact
districts
expansive
notion
section
liability
combined
apparent
eagerness
subject
legislative
attempts
comply
act
strict
scrutiny
place
many
untenable
position
facing
substantial
litigation
matter
draw
maps
see
miller
johnson
slip
ginsburg
dissenting
course
state
unfairly
packs
voters
limited
number
districts
may
subject
section
challenge
ground
failed
create
influence
districts
perhaps
majority
means
endorse
proposition
well
note
however
indication
challenge
successfully
brought
north
carolina
two
district
plan
creates
districts
bare
majorities
strict
analysis
case
tension
reasonable
approach
endorsed
justice
day
view
state
legislatures
seeking
comply
voting
right
act
clearly
possess
freedom
draw
districts
federal
courts
attempting
enforce
bush
post
concurring
judicial
creativity
rather
constitutional
principle
defines
narrowing
tailoring
requirement
area
law
clear
bush
quite
different
analysis
question
see
bush
post