By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 25, 2015//
U.S. Supreme Court
Civil
Equal Protection – Voting Rights Act
A District Court’s analysis of a racial gerrymandering claim as referring to the State “as a whole,” rather than district-by-district, was legally erroneous.
This Court has consistently described a claim of racial gerrymandering as a claim that race was improperly used in the drawing of the boundaries of one or more specific electoral districts, see, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 649 (Shaw I), and has described the plaintiff ’s evidentiary burden similarly, see Miller, supra, at 916. The Court’s district-specific language makes sense in light of the personal nature of the harms that underlie a racial gerrymandering claim, see Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 957; Shaw I, supra, at 648.
The District Court found the fact that racial criteria had not predominated in the drawing of some Alabama districts sufficient to defeat a claim of racial gerrymandering with respect to the State as an undifferentiated whole. But a showing that race-based criteria did not significantly affect the drawing of some Alabama districts would have done little to defeat a claim that race-based criteria predominantly affected the drawing of other Alabama districts. Thus, the District Court’s undifferentiated statewide analysis is insufficient, and the District Court must on remand consider racial gerrymandering with respect to the individual districts challenged by appellants.
989 F. Supp. 2d 1227, vacated and remanded.
13-895 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
Breyer, J.; Scalia, J., dissenting; Thomas, J., dissenting.