bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
al
strickland
et
argued
october
decided
march
despite
north
carolina
constitution
whole
county
provision
prohibiting
general
assembly
dividing
counties
drawing
legislative
districts
legislature
drew
house
district
include
portions
four
counties
including
pender
county
asserted
purpose
satisfying
voting
rights
act
time
district
geographically
compact
district
time
district
redrawn
population
district
fallen
percent
rather
redrawing
district
keep
pender
county
whole
legislators
split
portions
another
county
district
population
percent
keeping
pender
county
whole
resulted
population
percent
legislators
rationale
splitting
pender
county
gave
voters
potential
join
majority
voters
elect
minority
group
candidate
choice
leaving
pender
county
whole
violated
voting
rights
act
pender
county
others
filed
suit
alleging
redistricting
plan
violated
whole
county
provision
defendants
answered
dividing
pender
county
required
trial
first
considered
whether
defendants
established
three
threshold
requirements
liability
thornburg
gingles
first
relevant
whether
minority
group
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
concluded
although
majority
district
population
district
de
facto
district
get
enough
support
crossover
majority
voters
elect
preferred
candidate
ultimately
determined
based
totality
circumstances
required
pender
county
split
sustained
district
lines
rationale
state
reversed
holding
minority
group
must
constitute
numerical
majority
population
area
requires
creation
legislative
district
prevent
dilution
group
votes
numerical
majority
district
ordered
legislature
redraw
district
held
judgment
affirmed
affirmed
justice
kennedy
joined
chief
justice
justice
alito
concluded
require
state
officials
draw
lines
allow
racial
minority
make
less
percent
population
redrawn
district
join
crossover
voters
elect
minority
candidate
choice
pp
amended
provides
violation
established
based
totality
circumstances
shown
election
processes
state
political
subdivision
equally
open
participation
members
protected
class
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
construing
amended
gingles
supra
identified
three
necessary
preconditions
claim
use
multimember
districts
constituted
actionable
vote
dilution
later
held
requirements
apply
equally
cases
involving
districts
growe
emison
party
established
requirements
proceed
analyze
whether
violation
occurred
based
totality
circumstances
see
johnson
de
grandy
pp
geographically
compact
group
minority
voters
form
majority
district
first
gingles
requirement
met
pp
party
asserting
liability
must
show
preponderance
evidence
minority
population
potential
election
district
greater
percent
held
require
creation
district
minority
group
composes
numerical
working
majority
population
see
voinovich
quilter
require
creation
influence
district
minority
group
influence
outcome
election
even
preferred
candidate
elected
see
league
latin
american
citizens
perry
lulac
case
involves
intermediate
crossover
district
minority
makes
less
majority
population
large
enough
elect
candidate
choice
help
majority
voters
cross
support
minority
preferred
candidate
petitioners
theory
districts
satisfy
first
gingles
requirement
contrary
requires
showing
minorities
less
opportunity
members
electorate
elect
representatives
choice
form
percent
district
population
standing
alone
better
worse
opportunity
elect
candidate
group
relative
voting
strength
recognizing
claim
minority
voters
elect
candidate
choice
based
votes
without
assistance
others
grant
special
protection
right
form
political
coalitions
authorized
section
reasoning
cases
support
petitioners
claims
voinovich
example
stated
first
gingles
requirement
modified
eliminated
allow
claims
indeed
mandatory
recognition
claims
create
serious
tension
third
gingles
requirement
majority
votes
bloc
defeat
candidates
see
call
question
entire
gingles
framework
hand
finds
support
clear
line
drawn
requirement
need
workable
standards
sound
judicial
legislative
administration
contrast
required
crossover
districts
determining
whether
claim
lie
require
courts
make
complex
political
predictions
tie
assumptions
heightening
concerns
fact
applies
nationwide
every
jurisdiction
required
draw
lines
state
local
law
claims
require
courts
make
predictive
political
judgments
familiar
contests
large
districts
also
regional
local
elections
unlike
standards
proposed
allow
crossover
claims
rule
relies
objective
numerical
test
minorities
make
percent
population
relevant
geographic
area
given
text
cases
interpreting
provision
many
difficulties
assessing
claims
without
restraint
guidance
provided
rule
federal
courts
appeals
interpreted
first
gingles
factor
required
standard
declines
depart
uniform
interpretation
stood
years
case
involve
allegations
intentional
wrongful
conduct
need
consider
whether
intentional
discrimination
affects
gingles
analysis
pp
arguing
less
restrictive
interpretation
petitioners
point
guarantee
political
processes
equally
open
participation
protect
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
assert
opportunit
ies
occur
crossover
districts
require
protection
petitioners
emphasize
word
opportunity
expense
word
equally
statute
protect
possible
opportunity
minority
voters
work
constituencies
elect
candidate
choice
section
guarantee
minority
voters
electoral
advantage
minority
groups
crossover
districts
opportunity
elect
candidate
political
group
relative
voting
strength
rule
furthermore
odds
test
see
growe
supra
doubt
whether
calls
rule
resolved
applying
canon
constitutional
avoidance
steer
clear
serious
constitutional
concerns
equal
protection
clause
see
clark
martinez
concerns
raised
interpreted
require
crossover
districts
throughout
nation
thereby
unnecessarily
infus
ing
race
virtually
every
redistricting
lulac
supra
pp
holding
consider
permissibility
crossover
districts
matter
legislative
choice
discretion
section
allows
choose
method
complying
voting
rights
act
may
include
drawing
crossover
districts
see
georgia
ashcroft
moreover
holding
interpreted
entrench
districts
statutory
command
pose
constitutional
concerns
see
miller
johnson
districts
required
three
gingles
factors
met
applies
based
totality
circumstances
claim
similar
petitioners
assertion
rule
inconsistent
rejected
lulac
supra
pp
justice
thomas
joined
justice
scalia
adhered
view
holder
hall
opinion
concurring
judgment
text
voting
rights
act
authorize
vote
dilution
claim
regardless
size
minority
population
given
district
thornburg
gingles
framework
analyzing
claims
basis
text
produced
disastrous
misadventure
judicial
policymaking
holder
supra
kennedy
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
roberts
alito
joined
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
scalia
joined
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
ginsburg
breyer
joined
ginsburg
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinions
gary
bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
petitioners
dwight
strickland
et
al
writ
certiorari
north
carolina
march
justice
kennedy
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
chief
justice
justice
alito
join
case
requires
us
interpret
voting
rights
act
stat
amended
question
whether
statute
invoked
require
state
officials
draw
lines
allow
racial
minority
join
voters
elect
minority
candidate
choice
even
racial
minority
less
percent
population
district
drawn
use
terminology
district
district
racial
minority
elect
candidate
choice
support
crossover
majority
voters
require
district
drawn
accommodate
potential
case
arises
somewhat
unusual
posture
state
authorities
created
district
invoke
voting
rights
act
defense
argue
required
draw
district
question
particular
way
despite
state
laws
contrary
state
laws
provisions
north
carolina
constitution
prohibit
general
assembly
dividing
counties
drawing
legislative
districts
state
house
senate
art
ii
adopt
term
used
state
courts
refer
sections
state
constitution
whole
county
provision
see
pender
county
bartlett
case
common
ground
state
requirements
like
whole
county
provision
may
superseded
federal
law
instance
principle
equal
protection
clause
constitution
see
reynolds
sims
question
whether
voting
rights
act
requires
district
lines
drawn
otherwise
violate
whole
county
provision
turn
depends
statute
interpreted
begin
election
district
north
carolina
house
representatives
larger
two
chambers
state
general
assembly
district
body
lies
southeastern
part
north
carolina
starting
general
assembly
drew
district
include
portions
four
counties
including
pender
county
order
create
district
majority
population
satisfy
voting
rights
act
following
census
north
carolina
comply
whole
county
provision
rejected
general
assembly
first
two
statewide
redistricting
plans
see
stephenson
bartlett
stay
denied
rehnquist
chambers
stephenson
bartlett
district
present
form
emerged
general
assembly
third
redistricting
attempt
time
population
fallen
percent
district
drawn
general
assembly
longer
draw
geographically
compact
district
rather
draw
district
keep
pender
county
whole
however
general
assembly
drew
splitting
portions
pender
new
hanover
counties
district
population
percent
app
left
pender
county
whole
general
assembly
drawn
district
population
percent
general
assembly
reason
splitting
pender
county
give
voters
potential
join
majority
voters
elect
minority
group
candidate
choice
ibid
failure
state
officials
submit
diluted
minority
group
voting
strength
violation
may
pender
county
five
members
board
commissioners
filed
instant
suit
north
carolina
state
governor
north
carolina
director
state
board
elections
state
officials
plaintiffs
alleged
plan
violated
whole
county
provision
splitting
pender
county
two
house
districts
app
defendants
answered
dividing
pender
county
required
trial
recognized
procedural
posture
case
differs
cases
defendants
raise
defense
result
trial
stated
unusual
position
bearing
burden
proving
violation
occurred
absent
splitting
pender
county
draw
district
app
pet
cert
trial
first
considered
whether
defendant
state
officials
established
three
threshold
requirements
liability
thornburg
gingles
namely
minority
group
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
minority
group
politically
cohesive
white
majority
votes
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
first
gingles
requirement
trial
concluded
although
majority
population
district
district
de
facto
district
get
enough
support
crossover
majority
voters
elect
preferred
candidate
ruled
district
politically
cohesive
thus
satisfying
second
requirement
later
plaintiffs
stipulated
third
gingles
requirement
met
app
pet
cert
determined
based
totality
circumstances
required
general
assembly
split
pender
county
sustained
lines
district
rationale
three
pender
county
commissioners
appealed
trial
ruling
defendants
established
first
gingles
requirement
north
carolina
reversed
held
minority
group
must
constitute
numerical
majority
voting
population
area
consideration
section
requires
creation
legislative
district
prevent
dilution
votes
minority
group
premise
state
determined
district
mandated
constitute
numerical
majority
citizens
voting
age
ordered
general
assembly
redraw
district
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
passage
voting
rights
act
important
step
struggle
end
discriminatory
treatment
minorities
seek
exercise
one
fundamental
rights
citizens
right
vote
though
act
whole
subject
debate
controversy
prompted
little
criticism
likely
explanation
general
acceptance
first
enacted
tracked
part
text
fifteenth
amendment
prohibited
practices
imposed
applied
state
political
subdivision
deny
abridge
right
citizen
vote
account
race
color
stat
cf
amdt
right
citizens
vote
shall
denied
abridged
state
account
race
color
previous
condition
servitude
see
also
pt
pp
mobile
bolden
held
read
elaborates
upon
fifteenth
amendment
intended
effect
different
fifteenth
amendment
mobile
ruling
congress
amended
giving
statute
current
form
original
act
employed
intent
requirement
prohibiting
practices
imposed
applied
deny
abridge
right
vote
stat
amended
version
requires
consideration
effects
prohibits
practices
imposed
applied
manner
results
denial
abridgment
right
vote
stat
amendments
also
added
subsection
providing
test
determining
whether
violation
occurred
relevant
text
statute
voting
qualification
prerequisite
voting
standard
practice
procedure
shall
imposed
applied
state
political
subdivision
manner
results
denial
abridgement
right
citizen
vote
account
race
color
membership
language
minority
group
provided
subsection
section
violation
subsection
section
established
based
totality
circumstances
shown
political
processes
leading
nomination
election
state
political
subdivision
equally
open
participation
members
class
citizens
protected
subsection
section
members
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
first
construed
amended
version
thornburg
gingles
gingles
plaintiffs
residents
north
carolina
alleged
multimember
districts
diluted
minority
voting
strength
submerging
black
voters
white
majority
denying
opportunity
elect
candidate
choice
identified
three
necessary
preconditions
claim
use
multimember
districts
constituted
actionable
vote
dilution
minority
group
must
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
minority
group
must
politically
cohesive
majority
must
vote
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
later
held
three
gingles
requirements
apply
equally
cases
involving
districts
claim
alleging
vote
dilution
geographically
compact
minority
group
split
two
districts
growe
emison
case
party
established
gingles
requirements
proceed
analyze
whether
violation
occurred
based
totality
circumstances
gingles
supra
see
also
johnson
de
grandy
iii
case
turns
whether
first
gingles
requirement
satisfied
minority
group
makes
less
percent
population
potential
election
district
parties
agree
parts
gingles
analysis
dispositive
question
size
minority
group
sufficient
satisfy
first
gingles
requirement
outset
answer
might
appear
difficult
reach
gingles
said
minority
group
must
demonstrate
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
seem
end
matter
indicates
minority
group
must
demonstrate
constitute
majority
gingles
growe
reserved
considered
separate
question
whether
plaintiff
alleges
voting
practice
procedure
impairs
minority
ability
influence
rather
alter
election
results
showing
geographical
compactness
minority
group
sufficiently
large
constitute
majority
suffice
growe
supra
see
also
gingles
supra
since
applied
gingles
requirements
cases
declined
decide
minimum
size
minority
group
necessary
satisfy
first
requirement
see
voinovich
quilter
de
grandy
supra
league
latin
american
citizens
perry
opinion
kennedy
lulac
must
consider
question
case
appropriate
review
terminology
often
used
describe
various
features
election
districts
relation
requirements
voting
rights
act
districts
minority
group
composes
numerical
working
majority
population
present
doctrine
require
creation
districts
see
voinovich
supra
placing
black
voters
district
constitute
sizeable
therefore
majority
ensures
able
elect
candidate
choice
see
holder
hall
thomas
concurring
judgment
end
spectrum
influence
districts
minority
group
influence
outcome
election
even
preferred
candidate
elected
held
require
creation
influence
districts
lulac
supra
opinion
kennedy
present
case
involves
intermediate
type
district
crossover
district
like
influence
district
crossover
district
one
minority
voters
make
less
majority
population
crossover
district
minority
population
least
potentially
large
enough
elect
candidate
choice
help
voters
members
majority
cross
support
minority
preferred
candidate
case
referred
sometimes
crossover
districts
coalitional
districts
recognition
necessary
coalition
minority
crossover
majority
voters
see
georgia
ashcroft
see
also
pildes
voting
rights
law
war
social
science
voting
rights
rev
hereinafter
pildes
term
risks
confusion
claims
two
minority
groups
form
coalition
elect
candidate
coalition
choice
see
nixon
kent
county
en
banc
address
type
coalition
district
petitioners
present
case
state
officials
defendants
trial
argue
requires
crossover
district
minority
voters
might
able
persuade
members
majority
cross
join
petitioners
argue
although
crossover
districts
include
numerical
majority
minority
voters
still
satisfy
first
gingles
requirement
effective
minority
districts
petitioners
theory
keeping
pender
county
whole
violated
cracking
potential
crossover
district
drew
district
see
gingles
vote
dilution
may
caused
dispersal
blacks
districts
constitute
ineffective
minority
voters
petitioners
contend
required
override
state
law
split
pender
county
drawing
district
population
percent
rather
keeping
pender
county
whole
leaving
district
population
percent
reject
claim
first
conclude
petitioners
theory
contrary
mandate
statute
requires
showing
minorities
less
opportunity
members
electorate
elect
representatives
choice
form
percent
population
district
standing
alone
better
worse
opportunity
elect
candidate
group
voters
relative
voting
strength
district
opportunity
join
voters
including
racial
minorities
whites
reach
majority
elect
preferred
candidate
however
elect
candidate
based
votes
without
assistance
others
recognizing
claim
circumstance
grant
minority
voters
right
preserve
strength
purposes
forging
advantageous
political
alliance
hall
virginia
see
also
voinovich
supra
minorities
crossover
districts
dictate
electoral
outcomes
independently
nothing
grants
special
protection
minority
group
right
form
political
coalitions
inority
voters
immune
obligation
pull
haul
trade
find
common
political
ground
de
grandy
although
reserved
question
confront
today
cautioned
gingles
requirements
applied
mechanically
voinovich
supra
reasoning
cases
support
petitioners
claims
section
impose
draw
election
districts
duty
give
minority
voters
potential
best
potential
elect
candidate
attracting
crossover
voters
setting
first
requirement
claims
gingles
explained
nless
minority
voters
possess
potential
elect
representatives
absence
challenged
structure
practice
claim
injured
structure
practice
growe
stated
first
gingles
requirement
needed
establish
minority
potential
elect
representative
choice
district
without
showing
neither
wrong
remedy
difference
racial
minority
group
choice
choice
made
coalition
voinovich
stated
first
gingles
requirement
modified
eliminated
allow
claims
dicta
framed
first
gingles
requirement
anything
rule
see
de
grandy
requiring
sufficiently
large
minority
population
elect
candidates
choice
case
rejected
proposition
inherent
petitioners
claim
entitles
minority
groups
maximum
possible
voting
strength
eading
define
dilution
failure
maximize
tends
obscure
object
statute
run
counter
textually
stated
purpose
one
may
suspect
vote
dilution
political
famine
one
entitled
suspect
much
less
infer
dilution
mere
failure
guarantee
political
feast
allowing
claims
require
us
revise
reformulate
gingles
threshold
inquiry
baseline
jurisprudence
mandatory
recognition
claims
success
minority
depends
upon
crossover
majority
voters
create
serious
tension
third
gingles
requirement
majority
votes
bloc
defeat
candidates
difficult
see
requirement
met
district
definition
white
voters
join
sufficient
numbers
minority
voters
elect
minority
preferred
candidate
skeptical
test
satisfied
example
minority
voters
district
elect
candidate
choice
without
support
almost
percent
white
voters
confront
issue
however
reason
respondents
conceded
third
gingles
requirement
state
gingles
explained
absence
significant
white
bloc
voting
said
ability
minority
voters
elect
chosen
representatives
inferior
white
voters
adopt
petitioners
theory
dispense
requirement
ruling
call
question
gingles
framework
applied
see
lulac
souter
concurring
part
dissenting
part
aspects
established
analysis
districts
gingles
progeny
may
rethought
analyzing
ostensible
coalition
districts
cf
metts
murphy
en
banc
per
curiam
allowing
claim
survive
motion
dismiss
noting
tension
case
plaintiffs
effort
satisfy
first
third
prong
gingles
find
support
requirement
need
workable
standards
sound
judicial
legislative
administration
rule
draws
clear
lines
courts
legislatures
alike
said
less
exacting
standard
mandate
crossover
districts
determining
whether
claim
lie
determining
whether
potential
districts
function
crossover
districts
place
courts
untenable
position
predicting
many
political
variables
tying
assumptions
judiciary
directed
make
predictions
adopt
premises
even
experienced
polling
analysts
political
experts
assess
certainty
particularly
long
term
example
courts
required
pursue
inquiries
percentage
white
voters
supported
candidates
past
reliable
crossover
votes
future
elections
types
candidates
white
minority
voters
supported
together
past
trends
continue
past
crossover
votes
based
incumbency
depend
race
historical
turnout
rates
among
white
minority
voters
stay
questions
speculative
answers
supposed
prove
elusive
requirement
draw
election
districts
answers
like
inquiries
inferred
text
purpose
though
courts
capable
making
refined
exacting
factual
inquiries
inherently
make
decisions
based
highly
political
judgments
sort
claims
require
holder
thomas
concurring
judgment
underlying
principle
fundamental
importance
must
cautious
interpreting
statute
require
courts
make
inquiries
based
racial
classifications
predictions
statutory
mandate
petitioners
urge
us
find
raises
serious
constitutional
questions
see
infra
heightening
concerns
even
fact
applies
nationwide
every
jurisdiction
must
draw
lines
election
districts
required
state
local
law
claims
require
courts
make
predictive
political
judgments
familiar
contests
large
districts
also
regional
local
jurisdictions
often
feature
two
parties
candidates
petitioners
view
courts
face
difficult
task
discerning
crossover
patterns
nonpartisan
contests
city
commission
school
board
local
water
authority
political
data
necessary
make
determinations
nonexistent
elections
jurisdictions
predictions
speculative
best
given
especially
context
local
elections
voters
personal
affiliations
candidates
views
particular
issues
play
large
role
unlike
standards
proposed
allow
claims
rule
relies
objective
numerical
test
minorities
make
percent
population
relevant
geographic
area
rule
provides
straightforward
guidance
courts
officials
charged
drawing
district
lines
comply
see
lulac
supra
opinion
souter
recognizing
need
rule
election
district
drawn
minority
voters
form
majority
district
drawn
district
cracked
assigning
voters
elsewhere
assuming
gingles
factors
also
satisfied
denial
opportunity
elect
candidate
choice
present
discernible
wrong
subject
high
degree
speculation
prediction
attendant
upon
analysis
crossover
claims
arbitrary
invention
rule
foundation
principles
democratic
governance
special
significance
democratic
process
majority
means
special
wrong
minority
group
percent
voting
population
constitute
compact
voting
majority
despite
racially
polarized
bloc
voting
group
put
district
given
text
cases
interpreting
provision
many
difficulties
assessing
claims
without
restraint
guidance
provided
rule
federal
appeals
held
requires
creation
coalition
districts
instead
consider
question
interpreted
first
gingles
factor
require
standard
see
hall
cert
denied
valdespino
alamo
heights
independent
school
cert
denied
cousin
sundquist
cert
denied
sanchez
colorado
cert
denied
romero
pomona
overruled
grounds
mcneil
springfield
park
cert
denied
cf
metts
expressing
unwillingness
complaint
stage
foreclose
possibility
claims
decline
depart
uniform
interpretation
guided
federal
courts
state
local
officials
years
sure
gingles
requirements
applied
mechanically
without
regard
nature
claim
voinovich
remains
rule
however
party
asserting
liability
must
show
preponderance
evidence
minority
population
potential
election
district
greater
percent
one
contends
population
district
exceeds
threshold
case
involve
allegations
intentional
wrongful
conduct
therefore
need
consider
whether
intentional
discrimination
affects
gingles
analysis
cf
brief
amicus
curiae
evidence
discriminatory
intent
tends
suggest
jurisdiction
providing
equal
opportunity
minority
voters
elect
representative
choice
therefore
unnecessary
consider
requirement
proceeding
ultimate
analysis
see
also
garza
county
los
angeles
holding
apply
cases
intentional
discrimination
racial
minority
arguing
less
restrictive
interpretation
first
gingles
requirement
petitioners
point
text
guarantee
political
processes
equally
open
participation
protect
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
opportunity
petitioners
argue
occurs
crossover
districts
well
districts
extended
opportunities
say
require
protection
petitioners
put
emphasis
word
opportunity
expense
word
equally
statute
protect
possible
opportunity
mechanism
minority
voters
work
constituencies
elect
candidate
choice
section
guarantee
minority
voters
electoral
advantage
minority
groups
crossover
districts
form
voting
majority
without
crossover
voters
districts
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
candidate
political
group
relative
voting
strength
rule
furthermore
odds
test
de
grandy
confirmed
error
treating
three
gingles
conditions
exhausting
enquiry
required
instead
gingles
requirements
preconditions
consistent
text
purpose
help
courts
determine
claims
meet
standard
violation
see
growe
describing
gingles
threshold
factors
extent
doubt
whether
calls
rule
resolve
doubt
avoiding
serious
constitutional
concerns
equal
protection
clause
see
clark
martinez
canon
constitutional
avoidance
tool
choosing
competing
plausible
interpretations
statutory
text
resting
reasonable
presumption
congress
intend
alternative
raises
serious
constitutional
doubts
course
moral
imperative
racial
neutrality
driving
force
equal
protection
clause
racial
classifications
permitted
last
resort
richmond
croson
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
racial
classifications
respect
voting
carry
particular
dangers
racial
gerrymandering
even
remedial
purposes
may
balkanize
us
competing
racial
factions
threatens
carry
us
goal
political
system
race
longer
matters
goal
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendments
embody
nation
continues
aspire
shaw
reno
interpreted
require
crossover
districts
throughout
nation
unnecessarily
infuse
race
virtually
every
redistricting
raising
serious
constitutional
questions
lulac
opinion
kennedy
see
also
ashcroft
kennedy
concurring
interpretation
result
substantial
increase
number
mandatory
districts
drawn
race
predominant
factor
motivating
legislature
decision
miller
johnson
petitioners
view
case
courts
legislatures
need
scrutinize
every
factor
enters
districting
gauge
effect
crossover
voting
injecting
racial
measure
nationwide
districting
process
particular
concern
respect
consideration
party
registration
party
influence
easiest
likely
alliance
group
minority
voters
one
political
party
suggested
using
minority
voters
strength
within
particular
party
proper
yardstick
first
gingles
requirement
see
lulac
supra
opinion
souter
requiring
minority
voters
constitute
majority
voting
primary
party
tending
win
general
election
approach
replace
objective
administrable
rule
difficult
judicial
inquiry
party
rules
local
politics
determine
whether
minority
group
truly
controls
dominant
party
primary
process
mcloughlin
gingles
limbo
coalitional
districts
party
primaries
manageable
vote
dilution
claims
rev
troubling
still
inquiry
fusion
race
party
affiliation
determinant
partisan
considerations
may
suspect
drawing
district
lines
see
vieth
jubelirer
stevens
dissenting
kennedy
concurring
judgment
see
also
pildes
requirement
essentially
result
political
party
entitlement
certain
number
seats
disregarding
rule
relying
combination
race
party
presume
effective
majority
involve
law
courts
perilous
enterprise
rest
judicial
predictions
matter
law
race
party
hold
together
effective
majority
time
least
decennial
apportionment
cycles
likely
beyond
thus
relationship
race
party
distort
frustrate
search
neutral
factors
principled
rationales
districting
petitioners
approach
reverse
canon
avoidance
invites
divisive
constitutional
questions
unnecessary
contrary
purposes
precedents
voting
rights
act
given
consequences
extending
racial
considerations
even
districting
process
must
interpret
require
crossover
districts
holding
require
crossover
districts
consider
permissibility
districts
matter
legislative
choice
discretion
assuming
district
substantial
minority
population
legislative
determination
based
proper
factors
create
two
crossover
districts
may
serve
diminish
significance
influence
race
encouraging
minority
majority
voters
work
together
toward
common
goal
option
draw
districts
gives
legislatures
choice
lead
less
racial
isolation
noted
context
voting
rights
act
various
studies
suggested
effective
way
maximize
minority
voting
strength
may
create
influence
crossover
districts
ashcroft
much
like
allows
choose
method
complying
voting
rights
act
said
may
include
drawing
crossover
districts
see
address
mandate
however
must
note
concerned
maximizing
minority
voting
strength
de
grandy
statutory
matter
mandate
creating
preserving
crossover
districts
holding
also
interpreted
entrench
districts
statutory
command
pose
constitutional
concerns
see
miller
johnson
supra
shaw
reno
supra
wish
draw
crossover
districts
free
prohibition
exists
districts
required
three
gingles
factors
met
applies
based
totality
circumstances
areas
substantial
crossover
voting
unlikely
plaintiffs
able
establish
third
gingles
precondition
bloc
voting
majority
voters
see
supra
areas
districts
required
first
place
exercise
lawful
discretion
draw
crossover
districts
deemed
appropriate
see
pildes
districts
still
designed
places
encouraged
coalitions
across
racial
lines
districts
result
legislative
choice
obligation
proper
cases
defend
alleged
violations
pointing
crossover
voting
patterns
effective
crossover
districts
evidence
example
diminished
bloc
voting
third
gingles
factor
equal
political
opportunity
analysis
showing
state
intentionally
drew
district
lines
order
destroy
otherwise
effective
crossover
districts
raise
serious
questions
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendments
see
reno
bossier
parish
school
brief
amicus
curiae
evidence
discriminatory
intent
case
however
holding
recognizes
support
claim
require
creation
crossover
districts
first
instance
petitioners
claim
rule
inconsistent
rejected
similar
argument
lulac
opinion
kennedy
inquiries
different
section
concerns
minority
groups
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
ed
stringent
asks
whether
change
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
see
lulac
supra
bossier
parish
supra
lulac
held
although
presence
influence
districts
relevant
retrogression
analysis
lack
districts
establish
violation
opinion
kennedy
see
also
ashcroft
analysis
applies
crossover
districts
section
leaves
room
employ
crossover
districts
require
iv
commentators
suggest
racially
polarized
voting
waning
evidenced
example
election
minority
candidates
majority
voters
white
see
note
future
districts
light
declining
racially
polarized
voting
harv
rev
see
also
pildes
bullock
dunn
demise
racial
districting
future
black
representation
emory
still
racial
discrimination
racially
polarized
voting
ancient
history
much
remains
done
ensure
citizens
races
equal
opportunity
share
participate
democratic
processes
traditions
must
interpreted
ensure
continued
progress
irony
however
interpreted
entrench
racial
differences
expanding
statute
meant
hasten
waning
racism
american
politics
de
grandy
supra
crossover
districts
definition
result
white
voters
joining
forces
minority
voters
elect
preferred
candidate
voting
rights
act
passed
foster
cooperation
decline
expand
reaches
require
force
law
voluntary
cooperation
society
achieved
geographically
compact
group
minority
voters
form
majority
district
first
gingles
requirement
met
judgment
north
carolina
affirmed
ordered
gary
bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
petitioners
dwight
strickland
et
al
writ
certiorari
north
carolina
march
justice
thomas
justice
scalia
joins
concurring
judgment
continue
adhere
views
expressed
opinion
holder
hall
opinion
concurring
judgment
text
voting
rights
act
authorize
vote
dilution
claim
regardless
size
minority
population
given
district
see
ed
permitting
challenge
voting
qualification
prerequisite
voting
standard
practice
procedure
see
also
holder
supra
stating
terms
practice
reach
state
enactments
limit
citizens
access
ballot
continue
disagree
therefore
framework
set
forth
thornburg
gingles
analyzing
vote
dilution
claims
basis
text
evaluate
voting
rights
act
claim
test
produced
disastrous
misadventure
judicial
policymaking
holder
supra
reasons
concur
judgment
gary
bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
petitioners
dwight
strickland
et
al
writ
certiorari
north
carolina
march
justice
souter
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
question
case
whether
minority
voting
population
proposed
voting
district
ever
qualify
voting
rights
act
vra
residents
putative
district
whose
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
answer
minority
voters
district
right
claim
relief
statewide
districting
scheme
dilutes
minority
voting
rights
hold
answer
law
well
fact
sometimes
yes
district
may
district
long
cohesive
minority
population
large
enough
elect
chosen
candidate
combined
reliable
number
crossover
voters
otherwise
polarized
majority
plurality
view
district
minority
population
making
citizen
voting
age
population
cvap
provide
remedy
minority
voters
lacking
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
incorrect
factual
matter
statutory
phrase
given
natural
meaning
minority
voters
districts
minority
populations
routinely
elect
representatives
choice
effects
plurality
unwillingness
face
fact
disturbing
measure
flatly
odds
obvious
purpose
act
districts
minority
populations
never
count
districts
remedy
violation
obligation
provide
equal
electoral
opportunity
required
plurality
rule
pack
black
voters
additional
districts
contracting
number
districts
racial
minorities
success
transcending
racial
divisions
securing
preferred
representation
object
voting
rights
act
promoting
racial
blocs
role
race
districting
decisions
proxy
political
identification
heightened
measure
recalling
basic
premises
claims
show
far
astray
plurality
gone
section
vra
prohibits
districting
practices
resul
denial
abridgement
right
citizen
vote
account
race
denial
abridgment
established
based
totality
circumstances
shown
members
racial
minority
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
since
amended
stat
read
prohibit
practices
result
vote
dilution
see
thornburg
gingles
understood
distributing
politically
cohesive
minority
voters
voting
districts
ways
reduce
potential
strength
see
two
classic
patterns
voting
racially
polarized
districting
plan
systemically
discount
minority
vote
either
dispersal
blacks
districts
constitute
ineffective
minority
voters
concentration
blacks
districts
constitute
excessive
majority
eliminate
influence
neighboring
districts
treating
dilution
remediable
harm
recognizes
protects
merely
right
minority
voters
put
ballots
box
claim
fair
number
districts
votes
effective
see
three
points
follow
first
speak
fair
chance
get
representation
desired
must
identifiable
baseline
measuring
group
voting
strength
concurring
judgment
order
evaluate
claim
particular
multimember
district
district
diluted
minority
group
voting
strength
degree
violates
necessary
construct
measure
minority
voting
strength
several
baselines
imagined
one
example
compare
minority
voting
strength
particular
districting
plan
maximum
strength
possible
surprisingly
conclusively
rejected
approach
vra
passed
guarantee
minority
voters
fair
game
killing
see
johnson
de
grandy
held
better
baseline
measuring
opportunity
elect
although
dispositive
minority
rough
proportion
relevant
population
thus
assessing
claims
totality
circumstances
including
facts
history
geography
starting
point
comparison
number
districts
minority
voters
elect
chosen
candidate
group
population
percentage
ibid
see
also
league
latin
american
citizens
perry
lulac
proceed
totality
circumstances
first
proportionality
inquiry
comparing
percentage
total
districts
minority
opportunity
districts
minority
share
citizen
population
second
significance
proportionality
means
claim
must
assessed
looking
overall
effect
multidistrict
plan
state
one
congressional
seat
dilute
minority
congressional
vote
systemic
submergence
minority
votes
number
districts
drawn
treated
harm
complaint
must
look
entire
districting
plan
normally
statewide
alleging
challenged
plan
creates
insufficient
number
districts
territory
whole
see
third
violation
ultimately
results
dilutive
effect
districting
plan
whole
plaintiff
must
also
able
place
reasonably
compact
district
drawn
improve
upon
plan
actually
selected
see
de
grandy
supra
plaintiff
must
show
overall
deficiency
personal
injury
open
redress
first
essay
understanding
features
statutory
vote
dilution
thornburg
gingles
asked
whether
multimember
district
plan
choosing
representatives
voting
deprived
minority
voters
equal
opportunity
elect
preferred
candidates
answering
set
three
conditions
claim
must
meet
threshold
analyze
totality
circumstances
first
minority
group
must
able
demonstrate
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
second
minority
group
must
able
show
politically
cohesive
third
minority
must
able
demonstrate
white
majority
votes
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
emphasized
gingles
conditions
state
ultimate
standard
since
totality
circumstances
standard
set
explicitly
congress
see
lulac
supra
de
grandy
supra
instead
condition
serves
gatekeeper
ensuring
plaintiff
proceeds
plenary
review
real
chance
show
redressable
violation
ultimate
standard
third
condition
majority
racial
bloc
voting
necessary
establish
premise
claims
minority
whole
placed
disadvantage
owing
race
happenstance
independent
politics
gingles
second
minority
cohesion
show
minority
voters
vote
together
elect
distinct
representative
choice
ibid
first
large
geographically
compact
minority
population
condition
demonstrating
dilutive
plan
injures
plaintiffs
failing
draw
available
remedial
district
give
chance
elect
chosen
candidate
growe
emison
gingles
supra
ii
though
case
arose
constitution
north
carolina
dispositive
issue
one
federal
statutory
law
whether
district
minority
population
large
enough
elect
chosen
candidate
help
majority
voters
disposed
support
minority
favorite
ever
count
district
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
purposes
think
clear
nature
claim
text
answer
must
yes
nothing
statutory
text
suggest
congress
meant
protect
minority
opportunity
elect
solely
creation
districts
see
voinovich
quilter
section
says
nothing
districts
contrary
focuses
exclusively
consequences
apportionment
congress
made
clear
explicitly
prescribed
ultimate
functional
approach
totality
circumstances
test
see
violation
established
based
totality
circumstances
shown
functional
analysis
leaves
doubt
crossover
districts
vindicate
interest
expressly
protected
opportunity
elect
desired
representative
apparent
moment
first
took
reason
exists
statute
treat
crossover
district
less
legitimate
remedy
dilution
one
let
alone
rule
see
gingles
supra
concurring
judgment
minority
group
large
enough
constitute
voting
majority
district
show
white
support
probably
enable
election
candidates
members
prefer
minority
group
appear
demonstrated
least
measure
voting
strength
able
elect
candidates
choice
see
also
pildes
law
war
social
science
voting
rights
rev
hereinafter
pildes
magical
whether
enough
black
voters
become
formal
majority
conventional
district
created
safe
coalition
district
probability
electing
black
candidate
functionally
identical
definition
respect
electing
candidates
earlier
comments
much
say
whether
district
minority
population
cvap
may
redress
violation
question
fact
obvious
answer
course
minority
voters
constituting
less
voting
population
opportunity
elect
candidates
choice
amply
shown
empirical
studies
confirming
minority
groups
regularly
elect
preferred
candidates
help
modest
crossover
members
majority
see
north
carolina
example
determined
voting
districts
black
voting
age
population
little
opportunity
elect
black
candidates
pender
cty
bartlett
factual
finding
gone
unchallenged
well
supported
electoral
results
north
carolina
nine
house
districts
blacks
make
voting
age
population
vap
two
elected
black
representative
election
see
app
additional
house
districts
blacks
vap
one
elected
black
representative
election
ibid
surely
surprise
legislators
north
carolina
suggest
black
voters
districts
possibly
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
course
true
threshold
population
sufficient
provide
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
candidates
choice
elastic
proportions
likely
shift
future
past
see
pildes
explaining
blacks
required
well
population
district
elect
candidates
choice
number
gradually
fallen
well
stating
courts
went
far
refer
thumb
black
population
required
constitute
safe
district
racial
polarization
declined
continues
downward
first
gingles
condition
get
easier
satisfy
reason
create
arbitrary
threshold
functional
approach
continue
allow
dismissal
claims
districts
minority
populations
small
demonstrate
ability
elect
crossovers
numerous
allow
inference
vote
dilution
first
place
one
example
argue
based
record
experience
case
district
black
population
meet
first
gingles
condition
third
gingles
requirement
voting
may
well
provide
analytical
limit
claims
based
crossover
districts
see
lulac
souter
concurring
part
dissenting
part
noting
interrelationship
first
third
gingles
factors
see
also
post
breyer
dissenting
looking
third
gingles
condition
suggest
mathematical
limit
minority
population
necessary
cognizable
crossover
district
whatever
limit
may
need
set
since
respondent
state
officials
stipulated
voting
app
pet
cert
sum
addresses
voting
realities
practical
purposes
district
know
minorities
potential
elect
preferred
candidate
every
bit
good
district
fact
crossover
district
better
recognizing
crossover
districts
value
giving
greater
flexibility
draw
districting
plans
fair
number
districts
turn
allows
beneficent
reduction
number
districts
quintessentially
calculus
de
grandy
thereby
moderating
reliance
race
exclusive
determinant
districting
decisions
cf
shaw
reno
see
also
pildes
contrast
concerns
bizarrely
designed
safe
districts
hard
see
coalitional
districts
message
political
identity
predominantly
racial
coalitional
districts
seem
encourage
require
kind
integrative
political
alliance
might
thought
consistent
even
ideal
vra
constitution
quoting
bush
vera
crossover
thus
superior
district
precisely
requires
polarized
factions
break
mold
form
coalitions
discourage
racial
divisions
iii
plurality
contrary
conclusion
recognize
crossover
claim
based
fundamental
misunderstanding
claims
mistake
epitomized
following
assessment
crossover
district
question
ecause
form
percent
population
district
standing
alone
better
worse
opportunity
elect
candidate
group
voters
relative
voting
strength
district
ante
see
also
ante
crossover
districts
minority
voters
opportunity
elect
candidate
political
group
relative
voting
strength
claim
another
political
group
particular
district
might
relative
voting
strength
minority
share
population
takes
form
tautology
plurality
simply
looks
one
district
says
group
blacks
worse
group
whites
statement
might
true
might
standing
alone
demonstrates
nothing
even
two
groups
assumed
comparable
fact
attract
sufficient
crossover
credited
satisfying
first
gingles
condition
neither
prove
violation
without
looking
beyond
district
showing
disproportionately
small
potential
success
state
overall
configuration
districts
explained
ultimate
question
case
whether
minority
group
question
denied
equal
opportunity
participate
elect
answered
examining
broader
pattern
districts
see
whether
minority
denied
roughly
proportionate
opportunity
see
lulac
hence
saying
one
group
equals
another
even
true
particular
districts
facts
known
mean
either
neither
group
show
violation
plurality
simply
fails
grasp
alleged
violation
proved
disproved
looking
statewide
plurality
specific
justifications
counterfactual
position
supportable
tautology
plurality
seems
suggest
prior
cases
somehow
require
conclusion
minority
population
never
support
remedy
emphasizing
gingles
spoke
majority
referred
requirement
minority
voters
potential
chosen
representatives
ante
quoting
gingles
hard
know
make
point
since
plurality
also
concedes
explicitly
repeatedly
reserved
decision
today
question
see
lulac
supra
plurality
opinion
de
grandy
voinovich
growe
gingles
supra
fact
recent
cases
applying
majorities
formulated
first
gingles
prong
way
consistent
functional
approach
see
lulac
supra
context
challenge
drawing
district
lines
first
gingles
condition
requires
possibility
creating
existing
number
reasonably
compact
districts
sufficiently
large
minority
population
elect
candidates
quoting
de
grandy
supra
majorities
get
short
shrift
today
plurality
event
even
ignored
gingles
reservation
today
question
looked
gingles
potential
elect
statutory
text
fail
see
phrase
dictates
minority
ability
compete
must
singlehanded
order
count
explained
already
crossover
district
serves
interest
obtaining
representation
district
potential
crossover
promises
result
crossover
nothing
logic
allow
distinction
two
types
district
fact
plurality
distinction
artificial
terms
past
black
voter
registration
black
voter
turnout
relatively
low
even
black
voters
district
cvap
rely
crossover
voters
elect
candidate
choice
see
pildes
one
far
aware
addressing
ever
suggested
reliance
crossover
voting
district
rendered
minority
success
less
significant
meant
district
failed
satisfy
first
gingles
factor
answer
say
black
voters
district
assuming
unrealistic
voter
turnout
theoretically
potential
elect
candidate
without
crossover
support
relevant
arguing
abstract
black
cvap
potentially
successful
assumption
black
voters
turn
en
masse
elect
candidate
choice
without
reliance
crossovers
enough
majority
voters
stay
home
plurality
also
concerned
recognizing
potential
anything
entail
exponential
expansion
special
minority
districting
plurality
goes
far
suggest
recognizing
crossover
districts
possible
districts
inherently
entitl
minority
groups
maximum
possible
voting
strength
ante
conclusion
reflects
confusion
gatekeeping
function
gingles
conditions
ultimate
test
relief
see
ante
standing
alone
better
worse
opportunity
elect
candidate
group
voters
relative
voting
strength
already
explained
supra
mere
fact
threshold
gingles
conditions
met
district
drawn
minority
population
sufficiently
large
elect
candidate
choice
require
drawing
district
case
simply
first
gingles
condition
number
districts
needed
accepting
bartlett
position
way
imply
obligation
maximize
districts
minority
voter
potential
interpretation
first
gingles
factor
state
must
draw
districts
way
provides
minority
voters
fair
number
districts
opportunity
elect
candidates
choice
question
districts
count
toward
total
plurality
fear
maximization
finds
parallel
concern
treating
crossover
districts
districts
create
serious
tension
third
gingles
prerequisite
voting
ante
plurality
finds
difficult
see
requirement
met
district
definition
white
voters
join
sufficient
numbers
minority
voters
elect
minority
preferred
candidate
ibid
difficult
see
minority
population
cvap
elect
candidate
choice
crossover
white
voters
minority
definition
relies
white
support
elect
preferred
candidate
fact
alone
raise
doubt
matter
definition
otherwise
requirement
met
since
much
majority
may
voted
minority
candidate
choice
explained
supra
third
gingles
condition
may
well
impose
analytical
floor
minority
population
ceiling
degree
crossover
allowed
crossover
district
concept
voting
requires
majority
voters
tend
stick
together
relatively
high
degree
precise
standard
determining
voting
issue
case
however
refute
plurality
rule
one
need
recognize
racial
cohesion
bloc
voting
plurality
argues
qualifying
crossover
districts
districts
less
administrable
demanding
forcing
courts
engage
various
factual
predictive
questions
come
determining
percentage
majority
voters
provide
voting
minority
chance
electoral
success
ante
claims
based
state
failure
draw
districts
raise
issues
judicial
judgment
even
threshold
satisfied
still
engage
factually
messy
enquiries
potential
district
may
afford
degree
minority
cohesion
voting
existence
totality
circumstances
see
supra
plurality
rule
therefore
conserves
uncertain
amount
judicial
resources
expense
ignoring
class
claims
authority
strike
statute
coverage
plurality
misunderstands
nature
suggesting
rule
conflict
said
georgia
ashcroft
crossover
districts
count
districts
purpose
assessing
whether
minorities
opportunity
elect
preferred
candidates
choice
vra
supp
plurality
course
correct
differences
enquiries
ante
differences
save
today
decision
inconsistency
prior
pronouncement
districting
plan
violates
diminishes
ability
minority
voters
elect
preferred
candidates
choice
measured
minority
previous
electoral
opportunity
ashcroft
supra
districting
plan
violates
diminishes
ability
minority
voters
elect
representatives
choice
ed
measured
totality
circumstances
baseline
rough
proportionality
makes
sense
say
crossover
district
counts
district
comparing
past
present
comparing
present
possible
finally
plurality
tries
support
insistence
threshold
invoking
policy
constitutional
avoidance
calls
construing
statute
avoid
possibly
unconstitutional
result
plurality
suggests
allowing
lower
threshold
require
crossover
districts
throughout
nation
ante
thereby
implicating
principle
shaw
reno
districting
excessive
reliance
race
unconstitutional
excessive
equated
plurality
frequency
creating
opportunity
districts
plurality
precisely
backwards
state
inevitably
draw
crossover
districts
natural
byproduct
districting
based
traditional
factors
crossover
districts
count
districts
state
much
closer
meeting
obligation
without
reference
race
fewer
districts
therefore
need
created
purposefully
matter
law
districts
provide
minority
seeking
equality
opportunity
elect
preferred
candidates
state
much
go
create
sufficient
number
districts
required
bridge
gap
creating
exclusively
districts
inevitably
produce
districting
plan
reflects
greater
focus
race
plurality
however
seems
believe
reference
race
districting
poses
constitutional
concern
even
state
decision
reduce
racial
blocs
favor
crossover
districts
judicial
position
consequences
constitutional
avoidance
iv
serious
plurality
opinion
inconsistency
prior
cases
construing
perversity
results
portends
consider
effect
plurality
rule
north
carolina
districting
scheme
black
voters
make
approximately
north
carolina
distributed
throughout
state
house
districts
app
pet
cert
noted
black
voters
constitute
vap
districts
vap
additional
supra
functional
approach
black
voters
north
carolina
opportunity
elect
regularly
elect
representative
choice
many
house
districts
north
carolina
total
districts
see
app
north
carolina
districting
plan
therefore
close
providing
black
voters
proportionate
electoral
opportunity
according
plurality
however
remedy
crossover
district
provide
opportunity
minority
voters
lack
requisite
opportunity
must
therefore
lacking
minority
voters
already
living
districts
must
rely
crossover
plurality
reckoning
black
voters
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
nine
north
carolina
house
districts
see
ibid
plurality
view
north
carolina
must
long
way
go
satisfies
requirement
equal
electoral
state
like
north
carolina
faced
plurality
opinion
whether
wants
comply
simply
avoid
litigation
therefore
reason
create
crossover
districts
section
recognizes
need
districts
follows
neither
required
created
help
state
meet
obligation
equal
electoral
opportunity
legislature
induced
draw
crossover
district
plurality
encouragement
create
voluntarily
ante
open
attack
plurality
based
pointed
suggestion
policy
favoring
crossover
districts
runs
counter
shaw
plurality
thus
boiled
one
option
best
way
avoid
suit
way
comply
drawing
district
lines
way
packs
minority
voters
districts
probably
eradicating
crossover
districts
process
perhaps
plurality
recognizes
aberrant
implication
eventually
attempts
disavow
asserts
allows
choose
method
complying
voting
rights
act
said
may
include
drawing
crossover
districts
mandate
creating
preserving
crossover
districts
ante
see
also
ante
crossover
districts
evidence
equal
political
opportunity
judicial
fiat
legal
reasoning
plurality
even
attempt
explain
crossover
district
district
assessing
compliance
districting
plan
one
sought
remedy
violation
plurality
ways
voluntarily
drawing
crossover
district
brings
state
compliance
requiring
creation
crossover
district
must
way
remedy
violation
eliminating
crossover
district
must
cases
take
state
compliance
statute
elimination
crossover
district
cause
violation
fathom
voter
district
able
bring
claim
remedy
short
extent
plurality
holding
taken
control
future
results
plurality
eliminated
protection
districts
best
vindicate
goals
statute
done
force
perpetuate
racially
concentrated
districts
quintessential
manifestations
race
consciousness
american
politics
respectfully
dissent
gary
bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
petitioners
dwight
strickland
et
al
writ
certiorari
north
carolina
march
justice
ginsburg
dissenting
join
justice
souter
powerfully
persuasive
dissenting
opinion
make
concrete
implicit
exposition
plurality
interpretation
voting
rights
act
difficult
fathom
severely
undermines
statute
estimable
aim
today
decision
returns
ball
congress
legislature
cause
clarify
beyond
debate
appropriate
reading
gary
bartlett
executive
director
north
carolina
state
board
elections
et
petitioners
dwight
strickland
et
al
writ
certiorari
north
carolina
march
justice
breyer
dissenting
join
justice
souter
opinion
full
write
separately
light
plurality
claim
rule
used
gingles
gateway
serves
administrative
objectives
plurality
view
rule
amounts
relatively
simple
administrative
device
help
separate
outset
cases
likely
meritorious
even
objective
critically
important
plurality
believes
however
difficult
find
numerical
gateway
rules
work
better
assume
basic
purpose
gateway
number
separate
districts
minority
group
elect
representatives
choice
districts
minority
need
obtain
majority
crossover
votes
elect
representatives
consensus
candidates
ed
league
latin
american
citizens
perry
plurality
opinion
first
blush
one
might
think
rule
work
respect
minority
population
votes
bloc
always
elect
candidate
choice
minority
population
constitutes
less
district
candidate
elected
district
always
consensus
choice
minority
majority
voters
realities
voting
behavior
however
make
clear
answer
questions
see
brief
nathaniel
persily
et
al
amici
curiae
fifty
percent
seen
magic
number
conditions
complete
racial
polarization
equal
rates
voting
eligibility
registration
turnout
minority
community
able
elect
candidate
choice
practice
extreme
conditions
never
present
ome
districts
must
minority
others
less
minority
order
minority
community
equal
opportunity
elect
candidate
choice
emphasis
added
see
also
ante
souter
dissenting
voting
group
cohesive
except
districts
overwhelming
minority
populations
crossover
votes
often
necessary
question
likely
need
crossover
votes
force
minority
reject
preferred
choice
favor
consensus
candidate
number
even
try
answer
question
contrary
includes
say
minority
districts
imperfect
cohesion
may
context
prevent
election
candidate
excludes
say
districts
smaller
cohesive
minority
help
small
reliable
majority
crossover
vote
elect
preferred
candidate
use
numerical
gateway
rule
looks
directly
relevant
question
minority
bloc
large
enough
cohesive
enough
necessary
majority
crossover
vote
small
enough
minority
tending
vote
cohesively
likely
vote
preferred
candidate
rather
consensus
candidate
office
see
ante
souter
dissenting
mpirical
studies
confirm
minority
groups
constituting
less
voting
population
regularly
elect
preferred
candidates
help
modest
crossover
members
majority
see
also
pildes
law
war
social
science
voting
rights
rev
reviewing
studies
showing
small
reliable
crossover
voting
whites
districts
minority
voters
demonstrated
ability
elect
preferred
candidates
without
constituting
population
district
likely
find
reasonably
administrable
mathematical
formula
directly
tied
factors
question
take
possible
example
suppose
pick
numerical
ratio
requires
minority
voting
age
population
twice
large
percentage
majority
crossover
votes
needed
elect
minority
preferred
candidate
calculate
latter
percentage
majority
crossover
votes
minority
voters
need
take
account
percentage
minority
voting
age
population
district
cohesiveness
vote
thus
minority
voters
account
voters
district
voters
tend
vote
cohesively
group
minority
needs
crossover
vote
majority
voters
elect
preferred
candidate
district
voters
minority
voters
majority
voters
minority
voters
vote
minority
group
preferred
candidate
election
time
minority
voters
need
votes
elect
preferred
candidate
majority
larger
minority
population
greater
cohesiveness
thus
smaller
crossover
vote
needed
assure
success
greater
likelihood
minority
elect
preferred
candidate
smaller
likelihood
cohesive
minority
order
find
needed
majority
crossover
vote
must
support
consensus
rather
preferred
candidate
reflecting
reality
minority
voters
elect
candidate
choice
constitute
less
district
relying
small
majority
crossover
vote
approach
way
contradictory
even
tension
third
gingles
requirement
since
gingles
acknowledged
requirement
voting
satisfied
even
small
number
majority
voters
crossover
support
candidate
see
thornburg
gingles
finding
voting
majority
group
supported
candidates
general
election
rate
average
support
given
difficulty
obtaining
totally
accurate
statistics
cohesion
even
voting
age
population
district
courts
administer
numerical
ratio
flexibly
opening
closing
gingles
gate
light
probable
merits
case
small
variances
issue
minority
group
instead
district
true
number
minority
group
instead
district
see
brief
amicus
curiae
claim
ratio
perfect
rule
claim
better
plurality
rule
unlike
ratio
voting
age
minority
population
necessary
crossover
votes
focuses
directly
upon
problem
hand
better
reflects
voting
realities
consequently
far
better
separates
gateway
likely
sheep
likely
goats
see
gingles
supra
section
inquiry
depends
view
political
process
searching
practical
evaluation
past
present
reality
quoting
gingles
supra
concurring
judgment
indication
congress
intended
mandate
single
universally
applicable
standard
measuring
undiluted
minority
voting
strength
regardless
local
conditions
cases
rule
rule
roughly
similar
effects
districts
minority
voting
age
population
greater
almost
always
satisfy
rule
districts
minority
population
almost
never
satisfy
rule
districts
minority
voting
age
populations
range
divergent
approaches
two
standards
make
critical
difference
well
word
justice
souter
well
explains
majority
test
ill
suited
statute
objectives
add
test
majority
adopts
ill
suited
administrative
ends
better
gateway
tests
needed
found
respect
dissent
footnotes
previously
illustrated
stylized
fashion
assume
hypothetical
jurisdiction
voters
divided
districts
members
minority
group
make
percent
voting
population
voting
totally
polarized
along
racial
lines
right
geographic
dispersion
satisfy
compactness
requirement
careful
manipulation
district
lines
minority
voters
might
placed
control
many
districts
district
drawn
least
members
minority
group
whether
remaining
minority
voters
added
groupings
safety
scattered
three
districts
minority
voters
able
elect
candidates
choice
seven
districts
johnson
de
grandy
course
create
entitlement
proportionate
minority
representation
nothing
statute
promises
electoral
success
rather
simply
provides
subject
qualifications
based
totality
circumstances
minority
voters
entitled
practical
chance
compete
roughly
proportionate
number
districts
inority
voters
immune
obligation
pull
haul
trade
find
common
political
ground
case
entirely
inappropriate
vehicle
speculation
exact
definition
voting
see
supra
political
science
literature
developed
statistical
methods
assessing
extent
voting
far
nuanced
plurality
rule
see
pildes
describing
falloff
rate
social
scientists
use
measure
comparative
rate
whites
vote
black
democratic
candidates
compared
white
democratic
candidates
noting
falloff
rate
congressional
elections
north
carolina
issue
never
briefed
case
us
respondents
stipulated
existence
voting
app
pet
cert
reason
attempt
accomplish
case
first
gingles
factor
actually
quantification
third
compare
dept
commerce
bureau
census
voting
age
population
citizens
table
online
http
visited
march
available
clerk
case
file
total
vap
north
carolina
table
black
vap
logic
north
carolina
fracture
submerge
districts
districts
black
voters
constitute
voting
population
routinely
elect
candidates
choice
without
ever
implicating
districts
covered
without
implicating
vra
untenable
implications
plurality
rule
end
plurality
declares
holding
apply
cases
intentional
discrimination
racial
minority
ante
logic
plurality
position
compels
absurd
conclusion
invidious
intentional
fracturing
crossover
districts
order
harm
minority
voters
state
claim
elimination
crossover
district
never
deprive
minority
voters
district
opportunity
elect
representatives
choice
minorities
invidiously
eliminated
district
simply
show
injury