shaw
reno
argued
april
decided
june
comply
voting
rights
act
prohibits
covered
jurisdiction
implementing
changes
standard
practice
procedure
respect
voting
without
federal
authorization
north
carolina
submitted
attorney
general
congressional
reapportionment
plan
one
district
attorney
general
objected
plan
ground
second
district
created
give
effect
minority
voting
strength
state
southeastern
region
state
revised
plan
contained
second
district
region
new
district
stretches
approximately
miles
along
interstate
much
length
wider
corridor
appellants
five
north
carolina
residents
filed
action
appellee
state
federal
officials
claiming
state
created
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
violation
among
things
fourteenth
amendment
alleged
two
districts
concentrated
majority
black
voters
arbitrarily
without
regard
considerations
compactness
contiguousness
geographical
boundaries
political
subdivisions
order
create
congressional
districts
along
racial
lines
assure
election
two
black
representatives
district
held
lacked
subject
matter
jurisdiction
federal
appellees
also
dismissed
complaint
state
appellees
finding
among
things
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
ujo
appellants
failed
state
equal
protection
claim
favoring
minority
voters
discriminatory
constitutional
sense
plan
lead
proportional
underrepresentation
white
voters
statewide
held
appellants
stated
claim
equal
protection
clause
alleging
reapportionment
scheme
irrational
face
understood
effort
segregate
voters
separate
districts
basis
race
separation
lacks
sufficient
justification
pp
district
properly
dismissed
claims
federal
appellees
appellants
racial
gerrymandering
claims
must
examined
backdrop
country
long
history
racial
discrimination
voting
pp
classifications
citizens
based
solely
race
nature
odious
free
people
whose
institutions
founded
upon
doctrine
equality
threaten
stigmatize
persons
reason
membership
racial
group
incite
racial
hostility
thus
state
legislation
expressly
distinguishes
among
citizens
account
race
whether
contains
explicit
distinction
unexplainable
grounds
race
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
development
must
narrowly
tailored
compelling
governmental
interest
see
wygant
jackson
bd
plurality
opinion
redistricting
legislation
alleged
bizarre
face
unexplainable
grounds
race
demands
close
scrutiny
regardless
motivations
underlying
adoption
see
gomillion
lightfoot
may
difficult
determine
face
districting
plan
makes
distinction
mean
racial
gerrymander
established
receive
less
scrutiny
legislation
classifying
citizens
race
perpetuating
stereotypical
notions
members
racial
group
think
alike
share
political
interests
prefer
candidates
racial
gerrymander
may
exacerbate
patterns
racial
bloc
voting
districting
sometimes
said
counteract
also
sends
elected
representatives
message
primary
obligation
represent
group
members
rather
constituency
whole
since
holding
makes
unnecessary
decide
whether
reapportionment
plan
face
explained
nonracial
terms
successfully
challenged
expresses
view
whether
intentional
creation
districts
without
always
gives
rise
equal
protection
claim
pp
classification
citizens
race
threatens
special
harms
present
cases
thus
warrants
analysis
different
used
assessing
validity
multimember
gerrymandering
schemes
addition
nothing
decisions
compels
conclusion
racial
political
gerrymanders
subject
constitutional
scrutiny
fact
country
long
persistent
history
racial
discrimination
voting
fourteenth
amendment
jurisprudence
seem
compel
opposite
conclusion
support
argument
racial
gerrymandering
poses
constitutional
difficulties
lines
drawn
favor
minority
since
equal
protection
analysis
dependent
race
burdened
benefited
particular
classification
richmond
croson
plurality
opinion
finally
highly
fractured
decision
ujo
foreclose
claim
recognized
analytically
distinct
claim
made
pp
remand
allegations
racial
gerrymander
contradicted
district
must
determine
whether
plan
narrowly
tailored
compelling
governmental
interest
covered
jurisdiction
interest
creating
districts
order
comply
nonretrogression
rule
voting
rights
act
give
carte
blanche
engage
racial
gerrymandering
parties
arguments
whether
plan
necessary
avoid
dilution
black
voting
strength
violation
act
whether
state
interpretation
unconstitutional
developed
issues
remain
open
consideration
remand
also
unnecessary
decide
stage
litigation
whether
plan
advances
state
interest
distinct
act
eradicating
effects
past
racial
discrimination
although
state
argues
strong
basis
concluding
remedial
action
warranted
three
justices
ujo
prepared
say
significant
interest
minimizing
consequences
racial
bloc
voting
apart
act
requirements
without
regard
sound
districting
principles
pp
expresses
view
whether
appellants
successfully
challenged
district
suggested
attorney
general
whether
complaint
stated
claim
constitutional
provisions
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
blackmun
post
stevens
post
souter
post
filed
dissenting
opinions
robinson
everett
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
jeffrey
parsons
jefferson
powell
argued
cause
state
appellees
briefs
michael
easley
attorney
general
north
carolina
edwin
speas
senior
deputy
attorney
general
norma
harrell
tiare
smiley
special
deputy
attorneys
general
edwin
kneedler
argued
cause
federal
appellees
brief
acting
solicitor
general
bryson
acting
assistant
attorney
general
turner
thomas
hungar
jessica
dunsay
silver
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
american
jewish
congress
marc
stern
lois
waldman
republican
national
committee
benjamin
ginsberg
michael
hess
washington
legal
foundation
et
al
daniel
popeo
richard
samp
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
democratic
national
committee
et
al
wayne
arden
jeffrey
wice
lawyers
committee
civil
rights
law
et
al
herbert
wachtell
william
brown
iii
thomas
henderson
frank
parker
brenda
wright
nicholas
deb
katzenbach
michael
cole
alan
kraus
laughlin
mcdonald
kathy
wilde
richard
larson
dennis
courtland
hayes
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
elaine
jones
charles
stephen
ralston
dayna
cunningham
bolley
johnson
et
al
donald
berrilli
scott
sinder
kevin
crowley
james
peters
justice
delivered
opinion
case
involves
two
complex
sensitive
issues
faced
recent
years
meaning
constitutional
right
vote
propriety
state
legislation
designed
benefit
members
historically
disadvantaged
racial
minority
groups
result
census
north
carolina
became
entitled
seat
house
representatives
general
assembly
enacted
reapportionment
plan
included
one
congressional
district
attorney
general
objected
plan
pursuant
voting
rights
act
stat
amended
general
assembly
passed
new
legislation
creating
second
district
appellants
allege
revised
plan
contains
district
boundary
lines
dramatically
irregular
shape
constitutes
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
question
us
whether
appellants
stated
cognizable
claim
voting
age
population
north
carolina
approximately
white
black
native
american
remaining
predominantly
asian
app
brief
federal
appellees
black
population
relatively
dispersed
blacks
constitute
majority
general
population
state
counties
brief
appellants
geographically
state
divides
three
regions
eastern
coastal
plain
central
piedmont
plateau
western
mountains
lefler
newsom
history
southern
state
north
carolina
ed
largest
concentrations
black
citizens
live
coastal
plain
primarily
northern
part
gade
stillwell
north
carolina
people
environments
general
assembly
first
redistricting
plan
contained
one
district
centered
area
state
forty
north
carolina
one
hundred
counties
covered
voting
rights
act
prohibits
jurisdiction
subject
provisions
implementing
changes
standard
practice
procedure
respect
voting
without
federal
authorization
ibid
jurisdiction
must
obtain
either
judgment
district
district
columbia
declaring
proposed
change
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
administrative
preclearance
attorney
general
ibid
general
assembly
reapportionment
plan
affected
covered
counties
parties
agree
applied
tr
oral
arg
state
chose
submit
plan
attorney
general
preclearance
attorney
general
acting
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
division
interposed
formal
objection
general
assembly
plan
attorney
general
specifically
objected
configuration
boundary
lines
drawn
southeastern
region
state
attorney
general
view
general
assembly
created
second
district
give
effect
black
native
american
voting
strength
area
using
boundary
lines
irregular
found
elsewhere
proposed
plan
failed
pretextual
reasons
see
app
brief
federal
appellees
state
remained
free
seek
declaratory
judgment
district
district
columbia
notwithstanding
attorney
general
objection
instead
general
assembly
enacted
revised
redistricting
plan
extra
ch
included
second
district
general
assembly
located
second
district
southeastern
part
state
region
along
interstate
see
appendix
infra
first
two
districts
contained
revised
plan
district
somewhat
hook
shaped
centered
northeast
portion
state
moves
southward
tapers
narrow
band
extensions
reaches
far
part
state
near
south
carolina
border
district
compared
rorschach
inkblot
test
shaw
barr
ednc
voorhees
concurring
part
dissenting
part
bug
splattered
windshield
wall
street
journal
second
district
district
even
unusually
shaped
approximately
miles
long
much
length
wider
corridor
winds
snake
like
fashion
tobacco
country
financial
centers
manufacturing
areas
gobbles
enough
enclaves
black
neighborhoods
voorhees
concurring
part
dissenting
part
northbound
southbound
drivers
sometimes
find
separate
districts
one
county
trade
districts
enter
next
county
counties
district
passes
cut
different
districts
even
towns
divided
one
point
district
remains
contiguous
intersects
single
point
two
districts
crossing
see
brief
republican
national
committee
amicus
curiae
one
state
legislator
remarked
drove
interstate
car
doors
open
kill
people
district
washington
post
apr
district
even
inspired
poetry
ask
line
drawn
drawn
avoid
thee
grofman
vince
lombardi
right
said
comes
redistricting
race
everything
thing
cardozo
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
attorney
general
object
general
assembly
revised
plan
numerous
north
carolinians
north
carolina
republican
party
individual
voters
brought
suit
federal
district
alleging
plan
constituted
unconstitutional
political
gerrymander
davis
bandemer
claim
dismissed
see
pope
blue
wdnc
summarily
affirmed
shortly
complaint
pope
blue
filed
appellants
instituted
present
action
district
eastern
district
north
carolina
appellants
alleged
revised
plan
constituted
political
gerrymander
violated
one
person
one
vote
principle
see
reynolds
sims
state
created
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymander
appellants
five
residents
durham
county
north
carolina
registered
vote
county
general
assembly
plan
two
vote
congressional
representatives
district
three
vote
neighboring
district
appellants
sued
governor
north
carolina
lieutenant
governor
secretary
state
speaker
north
carolina
house
representatives
members
north
carolina
state
board
elections
state
appellees
together
two
federal
officials
attorney
general
assistant
attorney
general
civil
rights
division
federal
appellees
appellants
contended
general
assembly
revised
reapportionment
plan
violated
several
provisions
constitution
including
fourteenth
amendment
alleged
general
assembly
deliberately
create
two
congressional
districts
majority
black
voters
concentrated
arbitrarily
without
regard
considerations
compactness
contiguousness
geographical
boundaries
political
subdivisions
purpose
create
congressional
districts
along
racial
lines
assure
election
two
black
representatives
congress
app
juris
statement
appellants
sought
declaratory
injunctive
relief
state
appellees
sought
similar
relief
federal
appellees
arguing
alternatively
federal
appellees
misconstrued
voting
rights
act
act
unconstitutional
district
granted
federal
appellees
motion
dismiss
ednc
agreed
unanimously
lacked
subject
matter
jurisdiction
reason
voting
rights
act
vests
district
district
columbia
exclusive
jurisdiction
issue
injunctions
execution
act
enjoin
actions
taken
federal
officers
pursuant
thereto
voorhees
concurring
relevant
part
two
judges
also
concluded
extent
appellants
challenged
attorney
general
preclearance
decisions
claim
foreclosed
holding
morris
gressette
vote
district
also
dismissed
complaint
state
appellees
majority
found
support
appellants
contentions
districting
prohibited
article
article
constitution
privileges
immunities
clause
fourteenth
amendment
deemed
appellants
claim
fifteenth
amendment
essentially
subsumed
within
related
claim
equal
protection
clause
claim
majority
concluded
barred
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
ujo
majority
first
took
judicial
notice
fact
omitted
appellants
complaint
appellants
white
rejected
argument
redistricting
benefit
minority
voters
per
se
unconstitutional
majority
also
rejected
appellants
claim
north
carolina
reapportionment
plan
impermissible
majority
read
ujo
stand
proposition
redistricting
scheme
violates
white
voters
rights
adopted
purpose
effect
discriminating
white
voters
account
race
purposes
favoring
minority
voters
complying
voting
rights
act
discriminatory
constitutional
sense
reasoned
districts
impermissibly
discriminatory
effect
unfairly
dilute
cancel
white
voting
strength
state
purpose
comply
voting
rights
act
general
assembly
plan
lead
proportional
underrepresentation
white
voters
statewide
majority
concluded
appellants
failed
state
equal
protection
claim
chief
judge
voorhees
agreed
redistricting
per
se
unconstitutional
dissented
rest
majority
equal
protection
analysis
read
justice
white
opinion
ujo
authorize
reapportionment
state
employs
traditional
districting
principles
compactness
contiguity
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
north
carolina
failure
respect
principles
judge
voorhees
view
augur
ed
constitutionally
suspect
potentially
unlawful
intent
sufficient
defeat
state
appellees
motion
dismiss
noted
probable
jurisdiction
ii
right
vote
freely
candidate
one
choice
essence
democratic
society
reynolds
sims
much
nation
history
right
sadly
denied
many
race
fifteenth
amendment
ratified
bloody
civil
war
promised
unequivocally
right
citizens
vote
longer
denied
abridged
state
account
race
color
previous
condition
servitude
amdt
alabama
exercise
geometry
one
example
racial
discrimination
voting
persisted
parts
country
nearly
century
ratification
fifteenth
amendment
see
south
carolina
katzenbach
registration
eligible
black
voters
ran
behind
whites
congress
enacted
voting
rights
act
dramatic
severe
response
situation
act
proved
immediately
successful
ensuring
racial
minorities
access
voting
booth
early
spread
black
white
registration
several
targeted
southern
fallen
well
thernstrom
whose
votes
count
affirmative
action
minority
voting
rights
soon
became
apparent
guaranteeing
equal
access
polls
suffice
root
racially
discriminatory
voting
practices
drawing
one
person
one
vote
principle
recognized
right
vote
affected
dilution
voting
power
well
absolute
prohibition
casting
ballot
allen
state
bd
elections
emphasis
added
members
racial
minority
group
vote
cohesive
unit
practices
multimember
electoral
systems
reduce
nullify
minority
voters
ability
group
elect
candidate
choice
ibid
accordingly
held
schemes
violate
fourteenth
amendment
adopted
discriminatory
purpose
effect
diluting
minority
voting
strength
see
rogers
lodge
white
regester
congress
responded
problem
vote
dilution
amended
voting
rights
act
prohibit
legislation
results
dilution
minority
group
voting
strength
regardless
legislature
intent
see
thornburg
gingles
applying
amended
claim
involving
multimember
districts
see
also
voinovich
quilter
districts
background
confront
questions
presented
view
district
properly
dismissed
appellants
claims
federal
appellees
focus
appellants
claim
state
engaged
unconstitutional
racial
gerrymandering
argument
strikes
powerful
historical
chord
unsettling
closely
north
carolina
plan
resembles
egregious
racial
gerrymanders
past
understanding
nature
appellants
claim
critical
resolution
case
complaint
appellants
claim
general
assembly
reapportionment
plan
unconstitutionally
diluted
white
voting
strength
even
claim
white
rather
appellants
complaint
alleged
deliberate
segregation
voters
separate
districts
basis
race
violated
constitutional
right
participate
electoral
process
complaint
app
juris
statement
see
also
brief
appellants
despite
invocation
ideal
constitution
see
plessy
ferguson
harlan
dissenting
appellants
appear
concede
redistricting
always
unconstitutional
see
tr
oral
arg
concession
wise
never
held
state
decisionmaking
impermissible
circumstances
appellants
object
redistricting
legislation
extremely
irregular
face
rationally
viewed
effort
segregate
races
purposes
voting
without
regard
traditional
districting
principles
without
sufficiently
compelling
justification
reasons
follow
conclude
appellants
stated
claim
upon
relief
granted
equal
protection
clause
see
iii
equal
protection
clause
provides
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
amdt
central
purpose
prevent
purposefully
discriminating
individuals
basis
race
washington
davis
laws
explicitly
distinguish
individuals
racial
grounds
fall
within
core
prohibition
inquiry
legislative
purpose
necessary
racial
classification
appears
face
statute
see
personnel
administrator
mass
feeney
accord
washington
seattle
school
dist
express
racial
classifications
immediately
suspect
bsent
searching
judicial
inquiry
simply
way
determining
classifications
benign
remedial
classifications
fact
motivated
illegitimate
notions
racial
inferiority
simple
racial
politics
richmond
croson
plurality
opinion
scalia
concurring
judgment
see
also
ujo
brennan
concurring
part
purportedly
preferential
race
assignment
may
fact
disguise
policy
perpetuates
disadvantageous
treatment
plan
supposed
beneficiaries
classifications
citizens
solely
basis
race
nature
odious
free
people
whose
institutions
founded
upon
doctrine
equality
hirabayashi
accord
loving
virginia
threaten
stigmatize
individuals
reason
membership
racial
group
incite
racial
hostility
croson
supra
plurality
opinion
ujo
supra
brennan
concurring
part
ven
pursuit
remedial
objectives
explicit
policy
assignment
race
may
serve
stimulate
society
latent
race
consciousness
suggesting
utility
propriety
basing
decisions
factor
ideally
bear
relationship
individual
worth
needs
accordingly
held
fourteenth
amendment
requires
state
legislation
expressly
distinguishes
among
citizens
race
narrowly
tailored
compelling
governmental
interest
see
wygant
jackson
bd
plurality
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
principles
apply
legislation
contains
explicit
racial
distinctions
also
rare
statutes
although
race
neutral
face
unexplainable
grounds
race
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
development
explained
feeney
racial
classification
regardless
purported
motivation
presumptively
invalid
upheld
upon
extraordinary
justification
brown
board
education
mclaughlin
florida
rule
applies
well
classification
ostensibly
neutral
obvious
pretext
racial
discrimination
yick
wo
hopkins
guinn
cf
lane
wilson
gomillion
lightfoot
appellants
contend
redistricting
legislation
bizarre
face
unexplainable
grounds
race
arlington
heights
supra
demands
close
scrutiny
give
state
laws
classify
citizens
race
voting
rights
precedents
support
conclusion
guinn
invalidated
fifteenth
amendment
statute
imposed
literacy
requirement
voters
contained
grandfather
clause
applicable
individuals
lineal
descendants
entitled
vote
prior
january
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
determinative
consideration
law
though
ostensibly
race
neutral
face
embod
ied
exercise
judgment
rest
ed
upon
discernible
reason
circumvent
prohibitions
fifteenth
amendment
words
statute
invalid
face
explained
grounds
race
applied
reasoning
uncouth
municipal
boundary
line
issue
gomillion
although
statute
redrew
city
limits
tuskegee
race
neutral
face
plaintiffs
alleged
effect
impermissibly
remove
city
virtually
black
voters
white
voters
reasoned
allegations
upon
trial
remained
uncontradicted
unqualified
conclusion
irresistible
tantamount
practical
purposes
mathematical
demonstration
legislation
solely
concerned
segregating
white
colored
voters
fencing
negro
citizens
town
deprive
preexisting
municipal
vote
extended
reasoning
gomillion
congressional
districting
wright
rockefeller
issue
wright
four
districts
contained
new
york
apportionment
statute
plaintiffs
alleged
statute
excluded
nonwhites
one
district
concentrated
three
every
member
assumed
plaintiffs
allegation
statute
segregate
eligible
voters
race
place
origin
stated
constitutional
claim
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
harlan
concurring
douglas
dissenting
justices
disagreed
whether
plaintiffs
carried
burden
proof
trial
dissenters
thought
unusual
shape
district
lines
explained
racial
terms
majority
however
accepted
district
finding
plaintiffs
failed
establish
districts
fact
drawn
racial
lines
although
boundary
lines
somewhat
irregular
majority
reasoned
bizarre
permit
conclusion
indeed
nonwhite
voters
lived
together
one
area
difficult
construct
voting
districts
without
concentrations
nonwhite
voters
wright
illustrates
difficulty
determining
face
districting
plan
purposefully
distinguishes
voters
basis
race
reapportionment
statute
typically
classify
persons
classifies
tracts
land
addresses
moreover
redistricting
differs
kinds
state
decisionmaking
legislature
always
aware
race
draws
district
lines
aware
age
economic
status
religious
political
persuasion
variety
demographic
factors
sort
race
consciousness
lead
inevitably
impermissible
race
discrimination
wright
demonstrates
members
racial
group
live
together
one
community
reapportionment
plan
concentrates
members
group
one
district
excludes
others
may
reflect
wholly
legitimate
purposes
district
lines
may
drawn
example
provide
compact
districts
contiguous
territory
maintain
integrity
political
subdivisions
see
reynolds
recognizing
legitimate
state
interests
difficulty
proof
course
mean
racial
gerrymander
established
receive
less
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
state
legislation
classifying
citizens
race
moreover
seems
clear
us
proof
sometimes
difficult
exceptional
cases
reapportionment
plan
may
highly
irregular
face
rationally
understood
anything
effort
segregat
voters
basis
race
gomillion
supra
gomillion
tortured
municipal
boundary
line
drawn
exclude
black
voters
case
case
state
concentrated
dispersed
minority
population
single
district
disregarding
traditional
districting
principles
compactness
contiguity
respect
political
subdivisions
emphasize
criteria
important
constitutionally
required
cf
gaffney
cummings
objective
factors
may
serve
defeat
claim
district
gerrymandered
racial
lines
cf
karcher
daggett
stevens
concurring
one
need
use
justice
stewart
classic
definition
obscenity
know
see
ultimate
standard
judging
constitutionality
gerrymander
recognize
dramatically
irregular
shapes
may
sufficient
probative
force
call
explanation
footnotes
omitted
put
differently
believe
reapportionment
one
area
appearances
matter
reapportionment
plan
includes
one
district
individuals
belong
race
otherwise
widely
separated
geographical
political
boundaries
may
little
common
one
another
color
skin
bears
uncomfortable
resemblance
political
apartheid
reinforces
perception
members
racial
group
regardless
age
education
economic
status
community
live
think
alike
share
political
interests
prefer
candidates
polls
rejected
perceptions
elsewhere
impermissible
racial
stereotypes
see
holland
illinois
prosecutor
assumption
black
juror
may
presumed
partial
simply
black
violates
equal
protection
clause
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
edmonson
leesville
concrete
society
continue
progress
multiracial
democracy
must
recognize
automatic
invocation
race
stereotypes
retards
progress
causes
continued
hurt
injury
perpetuating
notions
racial
gerrymander
may
exacerbate
patterns
racial
bloc
voting
districting
sometimes
said
counteract
message
districting
sends
elected
representatives
equally
pernicious
district
obviously
created
solely
effectuate
perceived
common
interests
one
racial
group
elected
officials
likely
believe
primary
obligation
represent
members
group
rather
constituency
whole
altogether
antithetical
system
representative
democracy
justice
douglas
explained
dissent
wright
rockefeller
nearly
years
ago
individual
important
race
creed
color
principle
equality
war
notion
district
must
represented
negro
notion
district
must
represented
caucasian
district
jew
district
catholic
system
whatever
name
called
divisive
force
community
emphasizing
differences
candidates
voters
irrelevant
constitutional
sense
racial
religious
lines
drawn
state
multiracial
multireligious
communities
constitution
seeks
weld
together
one
become
separatist
antagonisms
relate
race
religion
rather
political
issues
generated
communities
seek
best
representative
best
racial
religious
partisan
since
system
war
democratic
ideal
find
footing
dissenting
opinion
dissenters
consider
circumstances
case
functionally
indistinguishable
multimember
districting
voting
systems
loosely
described
varieties
gerrymandering
post
white
dissenting
see
also
post
souter
dissenting
considered
constitutionality
practices
fourteenth
amendment
cases
required
plaintiffs
demonstrate
challenged
practice
purpose
effect
diluting
racial
group
voting
strength
see
rogers
lodge
system
mobile
bolden
white
regester
multimember
districts
whitcomb
chavis
see
also
supra
multimember
schemes
however
classify
voters
basis
race
classifying
citizens
race
said
threatens
special
harms
present
cases
therefore
warrants
different
analysis
justice
souter
apparently
believes
racial
gerrymandering
harmless
unless
dilutes
racial
group
voting
strength
see
post
dissenting
opinion
explained
however
reapportionment
legislation
understood
anything
effort
classify
separate
voters
race
injures
voters
ways
reinforces
racial
stereotypes
threatens
undermine
system
representative
democracy
signaling
elected
officials
represent
particular
racial
group
rather
constituency
whole
see
supra
justice
souter
adequately
explain
harms
cognizable
fourteenth
amendment
dissenters
make
two
arguments
reconciled
precedents
first
suggest
racial
gerrymander
sort
alleged
functionally
equivalent
gerrymanders
nonracial
purposes
political
gerrymanders
see
post
opinion
stevens
see
also
post
opinion
white
held
political
gerrymanders
justiciable
equal
protection
clause
see
davis
bandemer
nothing
case
law
compels
conclusion
racial
political
gerrymanders
subject
precisely
constitutional
scrutiny
fact
country
long
persistent
history
racial
discrimination
voting
well
fourteenth
amendment
jurisprudence
always
reserved
strictest
scrutiny
discrimination
basis
race
see
supra
seem
compel
opposite
conclusion
second
justice
stevens
argues
racial
gerrymandering
poses
constitutional
difficulties
district
lines
drawn
favor
minority
rather
majority
see
post
dissenting
opinion
made
clear
however
equal
protection
analysis
dependent
race
burdened
benefited
particular
classification
croson
plurality
opinion
see
also
scalia
concurring
judgment
accord
wygant
plurality
opinion
indeed
racial
classifications
receive
close
scrutiny
even
may
said
burden
benefit
races
equally
see
powers
ohio
axiomatic
racial
classifications
become
legitimate
assumption
persons
suffer
equal
degree
finally
nothing
highly
fractured
decision
ujo
district
almost
exclusively
relied
dissenters
evidently
believe
controls
see
post
opinion
white
post
opinion
souter
forecloses
claim
recognize
today
ujo
concerned
new
york
revision
reapportionment
plan
include
additional
districts
response
attorney
general
denial
administrative
preclearance
regard
closely
resembles
present
case
cases
critically
different
another
way
plaintiffs
ujo
members
hasidic
community
split
two
districts
new
york
revised
redistricting
plan
allege
plan
face
highly
irregular
rationally
understood
effort
segregate
voters
race
indeed
facts
case
supported
claim
three
justices
approved
new
york
statute
part
precisely
adhered
traditional
districting
principles
think
permissible
state
employing
sound
districting
principles
compactness
population
equality
attempt
prevent
racial
minorities
repeatedly
outvoted
creating
districts
afford
fair
representation
members
racial
groups
sufficiently
numerous
whose
residential
patterns
afford
opportunity
creating
districts
majority
opinion
white
joined
stevens
rehnquist
jj
emphasis
added
district
relied
portions
ujo
reject
appellants
claim
see
view
used
wrong
analysis
ujo
framework
simply
apply
reapportionment
plan
alleged
irrational
face
immediately
offends
principles
racial
equality
ujo
set
forth
standard
white
voters
establish
unconstitutional
vote
dilution
purport
overrule
gomillion
wright
nothing
decision
precludes
white
voters
voters
race
bringing
analytically
distinct
claim
reapportionment
plan
rationally
understood
anything
effort
segregate
citizens
separate
voting
districts
basis
race
without
sufficient
justification
appellants
stated
claim
district
erred
dismissing
complaint
iv
justice
souter
contends
exacting
scrutiny
racial
gerrymanders
fourteenth
amendment
inappropriate
reapportionment
nearly
always
require
consideration
race
legitimate
reasons
post
dissenting
opinion
long
members
racial
groups
commonality
interest
racial
bloc
voting
takes
place
argues
legislators
take
race
account
order
comply
voting
rights
act
justice
souter
reasoning
flawed
earlier
term
unanimously
reaffirmed
racial
bloc
voting
political
cohesion
never
assumed
specifically
must
proved
case
order
establish
redistricting
plan
dilutes
minority
voting
strength
violation
see
growe
emison
unless
points
established
neither
wrong
remedy
racial
bloc
voting
minority
political
cohesion
may
found
exist
cases
course
reason
treat
racial
gerrymanders
differently
kinds
racial
classification
justice
souter
apparently
views
racial
gerrymandering
type
presented
special
category
benign
racial
discrimination
subject
relaxed
judicial
review
cf
post
dissenting
opinion
said
however
reason
equal
protection
clause
demands
strict
scrutiny
racial
classifications
without
determine
whether
discrimination
truly
benign
see
supra
thus
appellants
allegations
racial
gerrymander
contradicted
remand
district
must
determine
whether
general
assembly
reapportionment
plan
satisfies
strict
scrutiny
therefore
consider
level
scrutiny
requires
reapportionment
context
state
appellees
suggest
covered
jurisdiction
may
compelling
interest
creating
districts
order
comply
voting
rights
act
certainly
strong
interest
complying
federal
antidiscrimination
laws
constitutionally
valid
interpreted
applied
context
fourteenth
amendment
challenge
courts
must
bear
mind
difference
law
permits
requires
example
remand
north
carolina
might
claim
adopted
revised
plan
order
comply
nonretrogression
principle
principle
proposed
voting
change
precleared
lead
retrogression
position
racial
minorities
respect
effective
exercise
electoral
franchise
beer
beer
held
reapportionment
plan
created
one
district
none
existed
passed
muster
improved
position
racial
minorities
see
also
richmond
annexation
reduces
percentage
blacks
population
satisfies
districts
fairly
reflect
current
black
voting
strength
although
concluded
redistricting
scheme
issue
beer
nonretrogressive
hold
plan
reason
immune
constitutional
challenge
expressly
declined
reach
question
see
indeed
voting
rights
act
case
law
make
clear
reapportionment
plan
satisfies
still
may
enjoined
unconstitutional
see
neither
declaratory
judgment
district
district
columbia
preclearance
attorney
general
shall
bar
subsequent
action
enjoin
enforcement
new
voting
practice
allen
preclearance
private
parties
may
enjoin
enforcement
new
enactment
traditional
suits
attacking
constitutionality
thus
read
beer
cases
give
covered
jurisdictions
carte
blanche
engage
racial
gerrymandering
name
nonretrogression
reapportionment
plan
narrowly
tailored
goal
avoiding
retrogression
state
went
beyond
reasonably
necessary
avoid
retrogression
conclusion
supported
plurality
opinion
ujo
four
justices
determined
new
york
creation
additional
districts
constitutional
plaintiffs
failed
demonstrate
state
attorney
general
authorized
require
nonretrogression
principle
beer
opinion
white
joined
brennan
blackmun
stevens
jj
emphasis
added
us
state
appellees
contend
general
assembly
revised
plan
necessary
prevent
retrogression
avoid
dilution
black
voting
strength
violation
construed
thornburg
gingles
gingles
considered
multimember
redistricting
plan
north
carolina
state
legislature
held
members
racial
minority
group
claiming
vote
dilution
use
multimember
districts
must
prove
three
threshold
conditions
minority
group
sufficiently
large
geographically
compact
constitute
majority
district
minority
group
politically
cohesive
white
majority
votes
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
indicated
similar
preconditions
apply
challenges
districts
see
voinovich
quilter
growe
emison
appellants
maintain
general
assembly
revised
plan
required
contend
state
black
population
dispersed
support
two
geographically
compact
districts
bizarre
shape
district
demonstrates
evidence
black
political
cohesion
also
contend
recent
black
electoral
successes
demonstrate
willingness
white
voters
north
carolina
vote
black
candidates
appellants
point
blacks
currently
hold
positions
state
auditor
speaker
north
carolina
house
representatives
chair
north
carolina
state
board
elections
also
point
black
candidate
defeated
white
opponent
democratic
party
run
senate
seat
defeated
narrowly
republican
incumbent
general
election
appellants
argue
require
adoption
north
carolina
revised
plan
extent
unconstitutional
arguments
developed
issues
remain
open
consideration
remand
state
appellees
alternatively
argue
general
assembly
plan
advanced
compelling
interest
entirely
distinct
voting
rights
act
previously
recognized
significant
state
interest
eradicating
effects
past
racial
discrimination
see
croson
opinion
joined
rehnquist
white
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
wygant
plurality
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
state
must
strong
basis
evidence
concluding
remedial
action
necessary
croson
supra
quoting
wygant
supra
plurality
opinion
state
appellees
submit
two
pieces
evidence
gave
general
assembly
strong
basis
believing
remedial
action
warranted
attorney
general
imposition
preclearance
requirement
north
carolina
counties
gingles
district
findings
long
history
official
racial
discrimination
north
carolina
political
system
pervasive
racial
bloc
voting
state
appellees
assert
deliberate
creation
districts
precise
way
indeed
effective
way
overcome
effects
racially
polarized
voting
question
also
need
decided
stage
litigation
note
however
three
justices
ujo
prepared
say
significant
interest
minimizing
consequences
racial
bloc
voting
apart
requirements
voting
rights
act
three
justices
specifically
concluded
districting
response
racially
polarized
voting
constitutionally
permissible
state
employ
sound
districting
principles
affected
racial
group
residential
patterns
afford
opportunity
creating
districts
majority
opinion
white
joined
stevens
rehnquist
racial
classifications
sort
pose
risk
lasting
harm
society
reinforce
belief
held
many
much
history
individuals
judged
color
skin
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
reasons
districting
state
legislatures
demands
close
judicial
scrutiny
case
attorney
general
suggested
north
carolina
created
reasonably
compact
second
district
southeastern
part
state
express
view
whether
appellants
successfully
challenged
district
fourteenth
amendment
also
decide
whether
appellants
complaint
stated
claim
constitutional
provisions
fourteenth
amendment
today
hold
appellants
stated
claim
equal
protection
clause
alleging
north
carolina
general
assembly
adopted
reapportionment
scheme
irrational
face
understood
effort
segregate
voters
separate
voting
districts
race
separation
lacks
sufficient
justification
allegation
racial
gerrymandering
remains
uncontradicted
district
must
determine
whether
north
carolina
plan
narrowly
tailored
compelling
governmental
interest
accordingly
reverse
judgment
district
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
white
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
facts
case
mirror
presented
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
ujo
rejected
claim
creation
district
violated
constitution
either
per
se
matter
light
circumstances
leading
creation
district
particular
relevance
five
justices
reasoned
members
white
majority
plausibly
argue
influence
political
process
unfairly
canceled
see
opinion
white
joined
rehnquist
stevens
jj
state
intent
see
stewart
powell
concurring
judgment
accordingly
held
plaintiffs
entitled
relief
constitution
equal
protection
clause
reasoning
affirm
district
dismissal
appellants
claim
instance
today
chooses
overrule
rather
sidestep
ujo
glossing
striking
similarities
focusing
surface
differences
notably
admittedly
unusual
shape
newly
created
district
imagining
entirely
new
cause
action
holding
limited
anomalous
circumstances
ante
perhaps
substantially
hamper
state
legitimate
efforts
redistrict
favor
racial
minorities
nonetheless
notion
north
carolina
plan
whites
remain
voting
majority
disproportionate
number
congressional
districts
pursuant
state
sent
first
black
representatives
since
reconstruction
congress
might
violated
appellants
constitutional
rights
fiction
departure
settled
equal
protection
principles
seeing
good
reason
engage
either
dissent
grounds
disagreement
majority
simply
stated
appellants
presented
cognizable
claim
alleged
cognizable
injury
date
held
two
types
state
voting
practices
give
rise
constitutional
claim
first
involves
direct
outright
deprivation
right
vote
example
means
poll
tax
literacy
test
see
guinn
plainly
variety
implicated
appellants
allegations
need
detain
us
second
type
unconstitutional
practice
affects
political
strength
various
groups
mobile
bolden
stevens
concurring
judgment
violation
equal
protection
clause
latter
category
insisted
members
political
racial
group
demonstrate
challenged
action
intent
effect
unduly
diminishing
influence
political
process
although
severe
burden
limited
number
successful
suits
adopted
sound
reasons
central
explanation
nature
redistricting
process
majority
recognizes
redistricting
differs
kinds
state
decisionmaking
legislature
always
aware
race
draws
district
lines
aware
age
economic
status
religious
political
persuasion
variety
demographic
factors
ante
emphasis
original
aware
context
shorthand
taking
account
hardly
doubted
legislators
routinely
engage
business
making
electoral
predictions
based
group
characteristics
racial
ethnic
like
ike
race
racial
composition
geographic
area
fact
life
well
known
responsible
drawing
electoral
district
lines
lawmakers
quite
aware
districts
create
white
black
majority
new
district
comes
unavoidable
choice
racial
composition
district
beer
white
dissenting
redistricting
plans
also
reflect
group
interests
inevitably
conceived
partisan
aims
mind
allow
judicial
interference
whenever
occurs
invite
constant
unmanageable
intrusion
moreover
group
power
affect
political
process
automatically
dissipate
virtue
electoral
loss
accordingly
asked
identifiable
group
demonstrate
mere
lack
success
polls
make
successful
gerrymandering
claim
see
white
regester
whitcomb
chavis
considerations
mind
limited
claims
insisting
upon
showing
political
processes
equally
open
participation
group
question
members
less
opportunity
residents
district
participate
political
processes
elect
legislators
choice
white
regester
supra
indeed
brief
survey
decisions
illustrates
gerrymandering
cases
carry
theme
mere
suffering
polls
discrimination
polity
constitution
concerned
whitcomb
chavis
searched
vain
evidence
black
voters
less
opportunity
residents
participate
political
processes
elect
legislators
choice
generally
remarked
mere
fact
one
interest
group
another
concerned
outcome
district
elections
found
outvoted
without
legislative
seats
provides
basis
invoking
constitutional
remedies
indication
segment
population
denied
access
political
system
summed
views
matter
plurality
opinion
davis
bandemer
districting
inevitably
expression
interest
group
politics
power
influence
political
process
limited
winning
elections
question
gerrymandering
cases
whether
particular
group
unconstitutionally
denied
chance
effectively
influence
political
process
thus
equal
protection
violation
may
found
electoral
system
substantially
disadvantages
certain
voters
opportunity
influence
political
process
effectively
emphasis
added
meant
group
must
exhibit
strong
indicia
lack
political
power
denial
fair
representation
said
essentially
shut
political
process
short
even
assuming
racial
political
factors
considered
drawing
district
boundaries
showing
discriminatory
effects
threshold
requirement
absence
equal
protection
violation
need
reach
question
state
interests
served
particular
districts
distinguish
claim
alleges
redistricting
scheme
discriminatory
intent
effect
one
nothing
dividing
racial
classifications
benign
malicious
enterprise
majority
notes
treated
skepticism
see
ante
rather
issue
whether
classification
based
race
discriminates
anyone
denying
equal
access
political
process
even
members
least
inclined
approve
remedial
measures
acknowledged
significance
factor
see
fullilove
klutznick
stewart
dissenting
person
ujo
deprived
electoral
franchise
regents
univ
cal
bakke
powell
jewish
organizations
properly
viewed
case
remedy
administrative
finding
discrimination
encompassed
measures
improve
previously
disadvantaged
group
ability
participate
without
excluding
individuals
belonging
group
enjoyment
relevant
opportunity
meaningful
participation
electoral
process
emphasis
added
compelling
evidence
position
prior
day
directly
point
ujo
characterizes
decision
highly
fractured
ante
detract
attention
rejection
majority
ujo
claim
state
intentional
creation
districts
transgressed
constitutional
norms
stated
five
justices
view
absent
contention
proposed
plan
adopted
intent
effect
unduly
minimizing
white
majority
voting
strength
fourteenth
amendment
implicated
writing
three
members
justified
conclusion
follows
true
new
york
deliberately
increased
nonwhite
majorities
certain
districts
order
enhance
opportunity
election
nonwhite
representatives
districts
nevertheless
fencing
white
population
participation
political
processes
county
plan
minimize
unfairly
cancel
white
voting
strength
opinion
white
petitioners
made
showing
racial
criterion
used
basis
denying
right
vote
contravention
fifteenth
amendment
see
gomillion
lightfoot
made
showing
redistricting
scheme
employed
part
contrivance
segregate
minimize
cancel
voting
strength
minority
class
interest
otherwise
impair
burden
opportunity
affected
persons
participate
political
process
opinion
concurring
judgment
see
citations
omitted
light
background
strains
credulity
suggest
north
carolina
purpose
creating
second
district
discriminate
members
majority
group
impair
ing
burden
ing
opportunity
participate
political
process
stewart
concurring
judgment
state
made
mystery
intent
respond
attorney
general
objections
see
brief
state
appellees
improving
minority
group
prospects
electing
candidate
choice
doubt
constitutes
discriminatory
purpose
defined
equal
protection
cases
intent
aggravate
unequal
distribution
electoral
power
post
stevens
dissenting
even
assuming
question
appellants
alleged
requisite
discriminatory
effects
whites
constitute
roughly
total
population
voting
age
population
north
carolina
yet
state
plan
still
constitute
voting
majority
congressional
districts
though
might
dissatisfied
prospect
casting
vote
losing
candidate
lot
shared
many
including
disproportionate
number
minority
voters
surely
complain
discriminatory
treatment
ii
majority
attempts
distinguish
ujo
imagining
heretofore
unknown
type
constitutional
claim
words
ujo
set
forth
standard
white
voters
establish
unconstitutional
vote
dilution
nothing
decision
precludes
white
voters
voters
race
bringing
analytically
distinct
claim
reapportionment
plan
rationally
understood
anything
effort
segregate
citizens
separate
voting
districts
basis
race
without
sufficient
justification
ante
support
distinction
ujo
authority
cases
relied
either
importantly
majority
submission
withstand
analysis
logic
theory
appears
redistricting
segregates
drawing
lines
qualitatively
different
redistricting
affects
groups
way
distinction
without
foundation
essence
majority
argument
ujo
dealt
claim
vote
dilution
required
specific
showing
harm
cases
gomillion
lightfoot
wright
rockefeller
dealt
claims
racial
segregation
read
decisions
quite
differently
petitioners
claim
ujo
state
violated
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendments
deliberately
revising
reapportionment
plan
along
racial
lines
plurality
opinion
emphasis
added
also
stated
argument
history
area
demonstrates
fact
reason
race
divide
community
time
quoting
brief
petitioners
emphasis
original
ever
doubt
state
deliberately
used
race
purposeful
manner
words
analytically
distinct
claim
majority
discovers
today
plain
view
carry
day
petitioners
fact
demonstration
discriminatory
effect
required
case
function
kind
claim
made
function
type
injury
upon
insisted
gomillion
consistent
view
begin
reliance
case
font
novel
type
claim
curious
justice
frankfurter
characterized
complaint
alleging
deprivation
right
vote
violation
fifteenth
amendment
see
regardless
whether
description
accurate
see
ante
seriously
deflates
precedential
value
majority
seeks
ascribe
gomillion
see
case
stand
proposition
intentional
creation
districts
without
gives
rise
equal
protection
challenge
fourteenth
amendment
even
recast
fourteenth
amendment
case
gomillion
assist
majority
focus
alleged
effect
city
action
exclude
black
voters
municipality
tuskegee
noted
inevitable
effect
redefinition
tuskegee
boundaries
deprive
negro
petitioners
discriminatorily
benefits
residence
tuskegee
even
justice
whittaker
concurrence
appears
premised
notion
black
citizens
fenc
ed
municipal
benefits
subsequent
decisions
similarly
interpreted
gomillion
turning
unconstitutional
effect
legislation
see
palmer
thompson
gomillion
short
group
formed
majority
state
level
purportedly
set
manipulate
city
boundaries
order
remove
members
minority
thereby
denying
valuable
municipal
services
analogous
purpose
effect
alleged
case
case
invoked
majority
wright
rockefeller
supra
wright
involved
challenge
legislative
plan
created
four
districts
districts
whites
constituted
respectively
population
population
eighteenth
district
classified
nonwhite
puerto
rican
see
wright
rockefeller
sdny
murphy
dissenting
plaintiffs
alleged
plan
drawn
intent
segregate
voters
basis
race
violation
fourteenth
fifteenth
amendments
affirmed
district
dismissal
complaint
ground
plaintiffs
met
burden
proving
discriminatory
intent
see
fail
see
decision
based
failure
establish
discriminatory
intent
support
inference
unnecessary
prove
discriminatory
effect
wright
relevant
extent
illustrates
proposition
problem
complaint
stating
plan
carved
districts
basis
race
certain
circumstances
state
claim
fourteenth
amendment
end
however
must
allegation
discriminatory
purpose
effect
constitutionality
redistricting
plan
depends
twin
elements
wright
example
facts
might
supported
contention
districts
intended
fact
shield
district
minority
influence
pack
black
puerto
rican
voters
thereby
invidiously
minimizing
voting
strength
words
purposeful
creation
district
discriminatory
effect
achieved
means
packing
concentration
minority
voters
present
case
facts
sustain
allegation
lacking
support
precedents
majority
novel
type
claim
also
makes
sense
understand
theory
put
forth
redistricting
plan
uses
race
segregate
voters
drawing
uncouth
lines
harmful
way
plan
uses
race
distribute
voters
differently
former
bears
uncomfortable
resemblance
political
apartheid
see
ante
distinction
untenable
racial
gerrymanders
come
various
shades
voting
schemes
see
white
regester
fragmentation
minority
group
among
various
districts
majority
none
voinovich
quilter
otherwise
known
cracking
cf
connor
finch
stacking
large
minority
population
concentration
larger
white
population
parker
racial
gerrymandering
legislative
reapportionment
minority
vote
dilution
davidson
ed
finally
concentration
minority
voters
districts
constitute
excessive
majority
thornburg
gingles
also
called
packing
voinovich
supra
instance
race
consciously
utilized
legislature
electoral
purposes
instance
put
plaintiff
challenging
district
lines
burden
demonstrating
plan
meant
fact
exclude
identifiable
racial
group
participation
political
process
apparently
districting
segregates
drawing
lines
case
told
proof
longer
needed
instead
state
must
rebut
allegation
race
taken
account
fact
together
legislators
consideration
ethnic
religious
group
characteristics
thought
practically
took
granted
see
supra
part
explanation
majority
approach
perhaps
emotions
stirred
words
segregation
political
apartheid
loose
imprecise
use
today
majority
fear
led
astray
see
supra
consideration
race
segregation
cases
different
districting
standpoint
affected
groups
moreover
linedrawings
act
similar
fashion
plan
segregates
functionally
indistinguishable
varieties
gerrymandering
consistent
require
claimant
proof
discriminatory
purpose
effect
part
majority
explanation
holding
related
simultaneous
discomfort
fascination
irregularly
shaped
districts
lack
compactness
contiguity
like
uncouth
district
lines
certainly
helpful
indicator
form
gerrymandering
racial
might
taken
place
something
may
amiss
karcher
daggett
stevens
concurring
cf
connor
supra
disregard
geographic
divisions
compactness
often
goes
hand
hand
partisan
gerrymandering
see
karcher
supra
white
dissenting
wells
rockefeller
white
dissenting
district
irregularities
may
provide
strong
indicia
potential
gerrymander
particular
bearing
whether
plan
ultimately
found
violate
constitution
given
two
districts
drawn
similar
grounds
one
become
injurious
simply
virtue
snake
like
least
far
constitution
concerned
absent
evidence
differential
racial
impact
majority
contrary
view
perplexing
light
concession
compactness
attractiveness
never
held
constitute
independent
federal
constitutional
requirement
state
legislative
districts
gaffney
see
ante
shortsighted
well
regularly
shaped
district
effectively
effectuate
racially
discriminatory
gerrymandering
one
focusing
looks
rather
impact
majority
immediately
casts
attention
wrong
direction
toward
superficialities
shape
size
rather
toward
political
realities
district
composition
dixon
democratic
representation
reapportionment
law
politics
limited
terms
cases
involving
unusually
shaped
districts
approach
nonetheless
unnecessarily
hinder
extent
state
voluntary
effort
ensure
modicum
minority
representation
true
areas
minority
population
geographically
dispersed
also
true
minority
population
scattered
reasons
unrelated
race
example
incumbency
protection
state
rather
create
district
obvious
location
case
creation
district
unfairly
minimize
voting
power
group
constitution
justify
much
less
mandate
obstruction
said
much
gaffney
ourts
constitutional
warrant
invalidate
state
plan
otherwise
within
tolerable
population
limits
undertakes
minimize
eliminate
political
strength
group
party
recognize
districting
provide
rough
sort
proportional
representation
legislative
halls
state
iii
although
disagree
holding
appellants
claim
cognizable
discussion
level
scrutiny
requires
warrants
comments
doubt
state
compliance
voting
rights
act
clearly
constitutes
compelling
interest
cf
ujo
opinion
white
brennan
concurring
part
stewart
concurring
judgment
attorney
general
objected
state
plan
ground
failed
draw
second
district
appeared
pretextual
reasons
rather
challenge
conclusion
north
carolina
chose
draw
second
district
ujo
held
state
entitled
take
action
see
also
wygant
jackson
bd
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
seemingly
agreeing
position
warns
state
redistricting
effort
must
narrowly
tailored
interest
complying
law
ante
evident
however
north
carolina
precisely
tailored
meet
objection
attorney
general
prior
plan
hence
see
need
remand
even
accepting
majority
basic
approach
case
furthermore
intends
manage
standard
know
narrowly
tailored
create
irregular
district
opposed
one
compact
harms
state
interests
incumbency
protection
representation
rural
interests
following
two
options
creation
two
minority
influence
districts
single
district
one
narrowly
tailored
attorney
general
found
proposed
redistricting
change
violates
nonretrogression
principle
abridge
racial
minority
right
vote
narrow
tailoring
mean
state
preserve
status
quo
maintain
change
attempting
enhance
minority
voting
power
manner
small
sample
begins
scratch
surface
problems
raised
majority
test
suffices
illustrate
unworkability
standard
divorced
measure
constitutional
harm
state
efforts
remedy
minority
vote
dilution
wholly
unlike
typically
labeled
affirmative
action
extent
racial
group
injured
remedying
voting
rights
act
violation
involve
preferential
treatment
cf
wygant
supra
white
concurring
judgment
involves
instead
attempt
equalize
treatment
provide
minority
voters
effective
voice
political
process
equal
protection
clause
constitution
surely
stand
way
iv
since
agree
petitioners
alleged
equal
protection
violation
appeals
faithfully
followed
prior
cases
dissent
affirm
judgment
footnotes
noted
voting
rights
act
forbids
state
imposing
specified
devices
procedures
result
denial
abridgment
right
vote
account
race
color
section
also
provides
violation
prohibition
established
based
totality
circumstances
shown
political
processes
leading
nomination
election
equally
open
participation
members
protected
class
members
less
opportunity
members
electorate
participate
political
process
elect
representatives
choice
although
davis
involved
political
groups
principles
expressly
drawn
racial
gerrymandering
cases
see
plurality
opinion
although
disagreeing
holding
davis
claims
political
gerrymandering
justiciable
see
concurring
judgment
author
today
opinion
expressed
views
racial
gerrymandering
quite
similar
racial
minority
group
characterized
traditional
indicia
suspectness
vulnerable
exclusion
political
process
individual
voters
belong
group
enjoy
measure
protection
intentional
dilution
group
voting
strength
means
racial
gerrymandering
even
individual
right
infringed
racial
minority
prove
essentially
shut
political
process
emphasis
added
explained
position
squared
one
taken
majority
case
thornburg
gingles
noted
district
findings
north
carolina
officially
discriminated
black
citizens
respect
exercise
voting
franchise
approximately
employing
poll
tax
literacy
test
say
group
afforded
roughly
proportional
representation
never
make
claim
unconstitutional
discrimination
districting
might
intent
effect
packing
members
group
deprive
influence
districts
however
equal
protection
inquiry
look
group
overall
influence
treatment
elected
representatives
political
process
whole
borrow
term
segregate
majority
given
historical
connotation
believe
use
ill
advised
particularly
accurate
description
occurred
district
center
controversy
according
state
brief
state
appellees
even
racial
distribution
factor
racial
group
said
segregated
set
apart
isolate
webster
collegiate
dictionary
ed
black
plaintiffs
gomillion
lightfoot
confident
suffered
equally
whites
tuskegee
sought
maintain
control
annexing
predominantly
white
suburbs
rather
splitting
municipality
two
remarked
ragons
bacon
strips
dumbbells
strained
shapes
always
reliable
signs
partisan
racial
ethnic
factional
interests
served
regularly
drawn
district
may
turn
skillfully
constructed
intent
aid
one
party
sickels
dragons
bacon
strips
dumbbells
afraid
reapportionment
yale
appears
occurred
instance
providing
reasons
objection
attorney
general
noted
southeast
area
several
plans
drawn
providing
second
congressional
district
district
irregular
others
plan
see
app
brief
federal
appellees
north
carolina
decision
create
district
explained
attempt
meet
objection
decision
create
compact
southern
district
suggested
hand
likely
result
partisan
considerations
indeed
suit
brought
prior
one
different
plaintiffs
charged
district
grossly
contorted
logical
explanation
incumbency
protection
enhancement
democratic
partisan
interests
plan
ignores
directive
department
justice
create
minority
district
southeastern
portion
north
carolina
since
district
jeopardize
reelection
democratic
incumbent
app
juris
statement
complaint
pope
blue
wdnc
respect
incident
one
writer
observed
understanding
configurations
shaped
requires
us
know
least
much
interests
incumbent
democratic
politicians
knowledge
voting
rights
act
grofman
vince
lombardi
right
said
comes
redistricting
race
everything
thing
cardozo
district
pope
dismissed
appellants
claim
reasoning
part
plaintiffs
allege
state
redistricting
plan
caused
shut
political
process
pope
blue
wdnc
summarily
affirmed
decision
justice
blackmun
dissenting
join
justice
white
dissenting
opinion
join
part
iv
opinion
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
felt
additional
argument
necessary
decide
case
nevertheless
agree
conscious
use
race
redistricting
violate
equal
protection
clause
unless
effect
redistricting
plan
deny
particular
group
equal
access
political
process
minimize
voting
strength
unduly
see
chapman
meier
white
regester
particularly
ironic
case
today
majority
chooses
abandon
settled
law
recognize
first
time
analytically
distinct
constitutional
claim
ante
challenge
white
voters
plan
north
carolina
sent
black
representatives
congress
first
time
since
reconstruction
dissent
justice
stevens
dissenting
reasons
stated
justice
white
decision
district
affirmed
add
comments
emphasize
two
critical
facts
case
undisputed
first
shape
district
bizarre
must
drawn
purpose
either
advantaging
disadvantaging
cognizable
group
voters
second
regardless
shape
drawn
purpose
facilitating
election
second
black
representative
north
carolina
unarguable
facts
devotes
opinion
proving
give
rise
three
constitutional
questions
constitution
impose
requirement
contiguity
compactness
may
draw
electoral
districts
equal
protection
clause
prevent
state
drawing
district
boundaries
purpose
facilitating
election
member
identifiable
group
voters
finally
answer
second
question
generally
different
favored
group
defined
race
since
already
written
length
questions
negative
answer
briefly
explained
first
question
easy
independent
constitutional
requirement
compactness
contiguity
opinion
despite
many
references
shape
district
see
ante
suggest
otherwise
existence
bizarre
uncouth
district
boundaries
powerful
evidence
ulterior
purpose
behind
shaping
boundaries
usually
purpose
advantage
political
party
control
districting
process
evidence
always
useful
cases
lack
evidence
invidious
intent
case
however
know
legislators
purpose
north
carolina
legislature
drew
district
include
majority
voters
see
ante
evidence
district
shape
therefore
convincing
also
cumulative
purposes
irrelevant
second
question
believe
equal
protection
clause
violated
state
creates
kind
uncouth
district
boundaries
seen
karcher
daggett
gomillion
lightfoot
case
sole
purpose
making
difficult
members
minority
group
win
election
duty
govern
impartially
abused
group
power
electoral
process
defines
electoral
boundaries
solely
enhance
political
strength
expense
weaker
group
duty
however
violated
majority
acts
facilitate
election
member
group
lacks
power
remains
underrepresented
state
legislature
whether
group
defined
political
affiliation
common
economic
interests
religious
ethnic
racial
characteristics
difference
constitutional
unconstitutional
gerrymanders
nothing
whether
based
assumptions
groups
affect
whether
purpose
enhance
power
group
control
districting
process
expense
minority
group
thereby
strengthen
unequal
distribution
electoral
power
assumption
people
particular
minority
group
whether
defined
political
party
religion
ethnic
group
race
belong
vote
particular
way
used
benefit
group
constitutional
violation
occurs
politicians
always
relied
assumptions
people
particular
groups
likely
vote
particular
way
draw
new
district
lines
believe
anything
today
opinion
stop
future
finally
must
ask
whether
otherwise
permissible
redistricting
benefit
underrepresented
minority
group
becomes
impermissible
minority
group
defined
race
today
answers
question
affirmative
answer
wrong
permissible
draw
boundaries
provide
adequate
representation
rural
voters
union
members
hasidic
jews
polish
americans
republicans
necessarily
follows
permissible
thing
members
minority
group
whose
history
gave
birth
equal
protection
clause
see
ante
contrary
conclusion
described
perverse
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
see
cousins
city
council
chicago
stevens
dissenting
cert
denied
mobile
bolden
stevens
concurring
judgment
karcher
dagget
stevens
concurring
see
also
davis
bandemer
powell
joined
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
see
karcher
stevens
concurring
serve
purpose
favor
one
segment
whether
racial
ethnic
religious
economic
political
may
occupy
position
strength
particular
point
time
disadvantage
politically
weak
segment
community
violate
constitutional
guarantee
equal
protection
davis
bandemer
nn
powell
joined
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
describing
grotesque
gerrymandering
unusual
shapes
drawn
solely
deprive
democratic
voters
electoral
power
majority
acknowledge
require
showing
plaintiffs
bring
vote
dilution
claim
voting
rights
act
test
established
thornburg
gingles
minority
group
must
show
constitute
majority
district
politically
cohesive
white
majority
votes
sufficiently
bloc
enable
usually
defeat
minority
preferred
candidate
least
latter
two
three
conditions
depend
proving
today
brands
impermissible
racial
stereotypes
ante
true
gingles
involved
north
carolina
admits
earlier
established
existence
pervasive
racial
bloc
voting
ante
citizens
legislators
well
doubt
confused
requirement
evidence
one
type
case
constitution
prevents
reliance
another
offers
explanation
paradox
opinion
suggests
may
group
unconstitutional
offer
specific
benefits
redistricting
long
ago
course
argued
minority
groups
defined
race
groups
equal
protection
clause
protected
context
see
mobile
bolden
nn
stevens
concurring
judgment
justice
souter
dissenting
today
recognizes
new
cause
action
state
electoral
redistricting
plan
includes
configuration
bizarre
ante
rationally
understood
anything
effort
separate
voters
different
districts
basis
race
without
sufficient
justification
ante
subjected
strict
scrutiny
view
justification
determination
depart
prior
decisions
carving
narrow
group
cases
strict
scrutiny
place
review
customarily
applied
cases
dealing
discrimination
electoral
districting
basis
race
today
analyzed
equal
protection
claims
involving
race
electoral
districting
differently
equal
protection
claims
involving
forms
governmental
conduct
turning
different
regimes
analysis
useful
set
relevant
respects
districting
differs
characteristic
circumstances
state
might
otherwise
consciously
consider
race
unlike
contexts
addressed
state
conscious
use
race
see
richmond
croson
city
contracting
wygant
jackson
bd
teacher
layoffs
electoral
districting
calls
decisions
nearly
always
require
consideration
race
legitimate
reasons
racially
mixed
population
long
members
racial
groups
commonality
interest
implicit
ability
talk
concepts
like
minority
voting
strength
dilution
minority
votes
cf
thornburg
gingles
long
racial
bloc
voting
takes
place
legislators
take
race
account
order
avoid
dilution
minority
voting
strength
districting
plans
adopt
one
need
look
voting
rights
act
understand
may
required
held
race
may
constitutionally
taken
account
order
comply
act
jewish
organizations
williamsburgh
carey
ujo
plurality
opinion
white
joined
brennan
blackmun
stevens
jj
stewart
joined
powell
concurring
judgment
second
distinction
districting
governmental
decisions
race
figured
decisions
using
racial
criteria
characteristically
occur
circumstances
use
race
advantage
one
person
necessarily
obvious
expense
member
different
race
thus
example
awarding
government
contracts
racial
basis
excludes
certain
firms
competition
racial
grounds
see
richmond
croson
supra
see
also
fullilove
klutznick
opinion
burger
race
used
supplant
seniority
layoffs
someone
laid
otherwise
wygant
jackson
bd
supra
plurality
opinion
principle
pertains
nondistricting
aspects
voting
law
discrimination
places
disfavored
voters
disadvantage
exclusion
franchise
without
alternative
benefit
see
gomillion
lightfoot
voters
alleged
excluded
voting
municipality
districting
contrast
mere
placement
individual
one
district
instead
another
denies
one
right
benefit
provided
others
citizens
may
register
vote
represented
whatever
district
individual
voter
right
vote
election
election
result
voter
representation
held
one
constitutional
rights
violated
merely
candidate
one
supports
loses
election
group
including
racial
group
one
belongs
winds
representative
outside
group
see
whitcomb
chavis
true
course
one
vote
may
less
effective
depending
interests
individuals
one
district
cases
recognize
reality
members
race
often
shared
interests
dilution
thus
refers
effects
districting
decisions
individual
political
power
viewed
isolation
political
power
group
see
ujo
supra
plurality
opinion
reason
placement
given
voters
given
district
even
basis
race
without
diminish
effectiveness
individual
voter
ii
different
approaches
equal
protection
electoral
districting
nondistricting
cases
reflect
differences
characteristic
coincidence
disadvantageous
effect
illegitimate
purpose
associated
state
use
race
situations
immediately
triggered
least
heightened
scrutiny
every
member
address
issue
agreed
must
applied
even
classifications
designed
serve
permissible
state
interest
presumably
legitimate
consideration
race
districting
decision
usually
inevitable
voting
rights
act
communities
racially
mixed
however
without
result
diminished
political
effectiveness
anyone
taken
approach
applying
usual
standard
heightened
scrutiny
districting
decisions
sure
says
logically
possible
apply
strict
scrutiny
cases
uphold
uses
race
permissible
see
ante
frequently
constitutionally
permissible
use
race
electoral
districting
exemplified
consideration
race
comply
voting
rights
act
quite
apart
consideration
race
remedy
violation
act
constitution
seemed
appropriate
identify
impermissible
uses
describing
particular
effects
sufficiently
serious
justify
recognition
fourteenth
amendment
cases
general
requirement
order
obtain
relief
fourteenth
amendment
purpose
effect
districting
must
devalue
effectiveness
voter
compared
group
member
otherwise
able
enjoy
see
ujo
plurality
opinion
white
joined
stevens
rehnquist
jj
stewart
joined
powell
concurring
judgment
justice
white
describes
formulations
used
common
categories
dilutive
practice
dissenting
opinion
see
ante
ante
consequence
categorical
approach
absence
need
searching
scrutiny
shown
given
districting
decision
purpose
effect
falling
within
one
categories
cognizable
harm
like
dilution
abridgment
right
participate
electoral
process
shown
districting
plan
violates
fourteenth
amendment
approach
absence
allegation
cognizable
harm
need
scrutiny
gerrymandering
claim
proven
without
element
harm
dilution
proven
need
constitutional
scrutiny
never
suggestion
use
race
justified
type
scrutiny
since
dilution
right
vote
said
serve
legitimate
governmental
purpose
thus
theoretical
inconsistency
two
distinct
approaches
equal
protection
analysis
one
cases
electoral
districting
one
types
state
governmental
decisions
distinctions
two
categories
risk
fourteenth
amendment
districting
law
taken
imply
anything
purposes
general
fourteenth
amendment
scrutiny
benign
racial
discrimination
group
entitlement
distinct
individual
protection
appropriateness
strict
heightened
scrutiny
iii
appears
accept
purport
disturb
law
vote
dilution
way
see
ante
acknowledging
ujo
set
forth
standard
white
voters
establish
unconstitutional
vote
dilution
instead
creates
new
analytically
distinct
cause
action
principal
element
districting
plan
bizarre
face
ante
irrational
face
ante
extremely
irregular
face
ante
rationally
understood
anything
effort
segregate
citizens
separate
voting
districts
basis
race
without
sufficient
justification
ante
pleading
element
holds
suffices
without
allegation
harm
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
fourteenth
amendment
see
ante
may
terms
pleading
cause
action
met
rarely
case
wind
aberration
shape
district
issue
case
indeed
bizarre
examples
ever
likely
carry
unequivocal
implication
impermissible
use
race
finds
may
therefore
electoral
districting
cases
ever
likely
employ
strict
scrutiny
holds
applicable
remand
appellants
allegations
contradicted
ante
see
also
ante
nonetheless
cases
cause
action
sufficiently
pleaded
state
justify
decision
consider
race
required
compelling
state
interest
use
race
narrowly
tailored
interest
meanwhile
districting
cases
specific
consequential
harm
still
need
pleaded
proven
absence
use
race
may
invalidated
shown
serve
legitimate
state
purpose
cf
bolling
sharpe
offers
adequate
justification
treating
narrow
category
bizarrely
shaped
district
claims
differently
districting
claims
justification
imagine
preservation
sound
districting
principles
ujo
compactness
contiguity
justice
white
points
see
ante
dissenting
opinion
acknowledges
see
ante
held
principles
constitutionally
required
consequence
absence
justify
distinct
constitutional
regime
put
place
today
since
justification
departure
principles
continue
govern
electoral
districting
cases
generally
accordance
prior
decisions
respond
seeming
egregiousness
redistricting
us
untethering
concept
racial
gerrymander
case
concept
harm
exemplified
dilution
absence
allegation
harm
affirm
judgment
district
respectfully
dissent
bloc
racial
voting
unfortunate
phenomenon
repeatedly
faced
findings
knowledgeable
district
courts
fact
life
exists
often
result
neither
white
black
elected
district
race
minority
beer
white
dissenting
recognition
actual
commonality
interest
racially
polarized
bloc
voting
equated
race
stereotypes
described
ante
quoting
edmonson
leesville
concrete
forbidden
case
law
section
voting
rights
act
requires
covered
jurisdiction
demonstrate
either
attorney
general
district
new
districting
plan
purpose
effect
denying
abridging
right
vote
account
race
color
membership
language
minority
see
also
section
voting
rights
act
forbids
districting
plans
discriminatory
effect
minority
groups
majority
use
segregation
describe
effect
districting
may
suggest
carries
effects
comparable
school
segregation
making
subject
like
scrutiny
principal
consequence
school
segregation
inequality
educational
opportunity
provided
whereas
use
race
group
characteristic
districting
without
deny
equality
political
participation
brown
board
education
bolling
sharpe
held
requiring
segregation
public
education
served
legitimate
public
purpose
consideration
race
may
constitutionally
appropriate
electoral
districting
decisions
racially
mixed
political
units
see
supra
see
richmond
croson
plurality
opinion
joined
rehnquist
white
kennedy
jj
referring
variously
strict
scrutiny
standard
review
employed
wygant
heightened
scrutiny
scalia
concurring
judgment
strict
scrutiny
marshall
dissenting
classifications
must
serve
important
governmental
objectives
must
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
quoting
regents
univ
cal
bakke
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
jj
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
undertaking
close
examination
characteristics
advantaged
disadvantaged
racial
groups
said
justify
disparate
treatment
although
declining
articulate
different
standards
review
see
also
wygant
jackson
bd
plurality
opinion
powell
equating
various
articulations
standards
review
stringent
strict
scrutiny
course
held
disadvantaging
effect
uses
race
never
justified
sufficiently
close
relationship
sufficiently
strong
state
interest
see
croson
supra
plurality
opinion
regard
agree
justice
white
assessment
difficulty
white
plaintiffs
showing
opportunity
participate
equally
north
carolina
electoral
process
unconstitutionally
diminished
see
ante
dissenting
opinion
accuses
treating
use
race
electoral
redistricting
benign
form
discrimination
ante
saying
electoral
districting
frequently
permissible
uses
race
use
comply
voting
rights
act
well
impermissible
ones
determining
whether
use
race
permissible
cases
bizarrely
shaped
district
readily
look
effects
evaluating
electoral
districting
scheme
express
es
view
whether
intentional
creation
districts
without
always
gives
rise
equal
protection
claim
ante
quoting
ante
white
dissenting
repeatedly
emphasizes
reason
believe
configuration
devised
reference
traditional
districting
principles
present
case
falling
outside
cause
action
recognized
today
see
ante
says
new
cause
action
justified
understand
ingredients
stigmatic
harm
see
ante
threa
system
representative
democracy
ante
caused
mere
adoption
districting
plan
elements
described
text
supra
begin
complaint
nowhere
alleges
type
stigmatic
harm
see
app
juris
statement
complaint
motion
preliminary
injunction
temporary
restraining
order
putting
one
side
seems
utterly
implausible
presume
north
carolina
creation
strangely
shaped
district
generates
within
white
plaintiffs
anything
comparable
feeling
inferiority
status
community
may
affect
hearts
minds
way
unlikely
ever
undone
brown
board
education
representative
democracy
difficulty
seeing
threatened
indeed
rather
enhanced
districts
even
alleged
dilute
anyone
vote