392 (WDNC), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 (1992). Ibid. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. these are all arguments for ( ) side. the purchase to her American Express card. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266 (1977). Nonetheless, the notion that North Carolina's plan, under which whites remain a voting majority in a disproportionate number of congressional districts, and pursuant to which the State has sent its first black representatives since Reconstruction to the United States Congress, might have violated appellants' constitutional rights is both a fiction and a departure from settled equal protection principles. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976). The principle of equality is at war with the notion that District A must be represented by a Negro, as it is with the notion that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on. That system, by whatever name it is called, is a divisive force in a community, emphasizing differences between candidates and voters that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense. "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. As we have said, "it requires no special genius to recognize the political consequences of drawing a district line along one street rather than another." Journalize the entry to record and establish the allowance using the percentage method for January credit sales. The majority resolved the case under the Fifteenth Amendment. b. A covered jurisdiction's interest in creating majority-minority districts in order to comply with the nonretrogression rule under 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not give it carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering. Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Id., at 53-54. John Paul . 15, 1. Instead, it is the State that must rebut the allegation that race was taken into account, a fact that, together with the legislators' consideration of ethnic, religious, and other group characteristics, I had thought we practically took for granted, see supra, at 660. Classifying citizens by race, as we have said, threatens spe-. Id., at 472-473. UJO concerned New York's revision of a reapportionment plan to include additional majority-minority districts in response to the Attorney General's denial of administrative preclearance under 5. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. The District Court below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants' claim. of Cal. Instead, the Court creates a new "analytically distinct," ibid., cause of action, the principal element of which is that a districting plan be "so bizarre on its face," ante, at 644, or "irrational on its face," ante, at 652, or "extremely irregular on its face," ante, at 642, that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate citizens into separate voting districts on the basis of race without sufficient justification," ante, at 652. E. Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 (1988). Under the General Assembly's plan, two will vote for congressional representatives in District 12 and three will vote in neighboring District 2. Supreme Court rulings in the Shaw v. Reno (1995) and the Shelby County vs. Holder (2013) cases relied heavily on the reasoning behind the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965). These unarguable facts, which the Court devotes most of its opinion to proving, give rise to three constitutional questions: Does the Constitution impose a requirement of contiguity or compactness on how the States may draw their electoral districts? Given two districts drawn on similar, race-based grounds, the one does not become more injurious than the other simply by virtue of being snakelike, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned and absent any evidence of differential racial impact. Gomillion, supra, at 341. Supp., at 468-469. I respectfully dissent. The parties' arguments about whether the plan was necessary to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of 2 of the Act and whether the State's interpretation of 2 is unconstitutional were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand. 364 U. S., at 341. Ibid. the Attorney General's satisfaction that its proposed redistricting had neither the purpose nor the effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. And while Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), held that requiring segregation in public education served no legitimate public purpose, consideration of race may be constitutionally appropriate in electoral districting decisions in racially mixed political units. The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Indeed, because most of the nonwhite voters lived together in one area, it would have been difficult to construct voting districts without concentrations of nonwhite voters. Supp., at 475-477 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. See supra, at 642-643. Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. Moreover, it seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all. Equal Protection Clause. The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims. That it may be difficult to determine from the face of a single-member districting plan that it makes such a distinction does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny than other legislation classifying citizens by race. See n. 7, supra. See supra, at 647-649. The most compelling evidence of the Court's position prior to this day, for it is most directly on point, is UJO, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). But it did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright. Statement 67a-lOOa (Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and For Temporary Restraining Order). for a remand at all, even accepting the majority's basic approach to this case. 376 U. S., at 66-67. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. They have made no showing that the redistricting scheme was employed as part of a 'contrivance to segregate'; to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of a minority class or interest; or otherwise to impair or burden the opportunity of affected persons to participate in the political process." That duty, however, is not violated when the majority acts to facilitate the election of a member of a group that lacks such power because it remains underrepresented in the state legislature - whether that group is defined by political affiliation, by common economic interests, or by religious, ethnic, or racial characteristics. In that, state efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled "affirmative action." Appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the reapportionment scheme is so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. The district lines may be drawn, for example, to provide for compact districts of contiguous territory, or to maintain the integrity of political subdivisions. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association. Appellee Reno . 12(b)(6). See, e. g., White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 153-155 (1971). This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. It is shortsighted as well, for a regularly shaped district can just as effectively effectuate racially discriminatory gerrymandering as an odd-shaped one.9 By focusing on looks rather than impact, the majority "immediately casts attention in the wrong direction-toward superficialities of shape and size, rather than toward the political realities of district composition." (1986) (teacher layoffs), electoral districting calls for decisions that nearly always require some consideration of race for legitimate reasons where there is a racially mixed population. 16-19. The States certainly have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied. Proc. The difficulty of proof, of course, does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause than other state legislation classifying citizens by race. This question also need not be decided at this stage of the litigation. Respondent Argument (Reno) 1. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. Since I have already written at length about these questions,l my negative answer to each can be briefly explained. c. Answer the questions in part (b) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period. Give examples of input devices for computer systems. The fact that it now chooses to apply strict scrutiny when a law is meant to benefit a race that has been the subject of historical discrimination makes no sense. Appellants maintain that the General Assembly's revised plan could not have been required by 2. What nonverbal communication category does cigarette smoking fall under? Post, at 678 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. JUSTICE SOUTER apparently views racial gerrymandering of the type presented here as a special category of "benign" racial discrimination that should be subject to relaxed judicial review. First, they suggest that a racial gerrymander of the sort alleged here is functionally equivalent to gerrymanders for nonracial purposes, such as political gerrymanders. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. One need look no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand that this may be required, and we have held that race may constitutionally be taken into account in order to comply with that Act. A second distinction between districting and most other governmental decisions in which race has figured is that those other decisions using racial criteria characteristically occur in circumstances in which the use of race to the advantage of one person is necessarily at the obvious expense of a member of a different race. Allen v. State Bd. The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography, AP Edition, Elliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson, Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics, Douglas A. Lind, Samuel A. Wathen, William G. Marchal, Chapter 14 and 15 Study Guide 8th BJU History. In favor of Shaw. This new plant is expected to generate aftertax cash flows of$9.4 million in perpetuity. Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 752, n. 18; see ante, at 647. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(1977). In other words, the "analytically distinct claim" the majority discovers today was in plain view and did not carry the day for petitioners. where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. The Act proved immediately successful in ensuring racial minorities access to the voting booth; by the early 1970's, the spread between black and white registration in several of the targeted Southern States had fallen to well below 10%. It also will be true where the minority population is not scattered but, for reasons unrelated to racefor example incumbency protection-the State would rather not create the majority-minority district in its most "obvious" location.10 When, as is the case here, the creation of. Regents of Univ. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. 642-649. That claim, the majority concluded, was barred by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977) (UJO). 14, 27-29. Ibid. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like <"minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf.Thornburg v. Gingles(1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place, legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt. Accord, Wygant, 476 U. S., at 273 (plurality opinion). Supp., at 467. So, too, would be a case in which a State concentrated a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. Even Members of the Court least inclined to approve of race-based remedial measures have acknowledged the significance of this factor. Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. A new issue of 20-year bonds: The flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4% of the proceeds. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. 1984); and, finally, the "concentration of [minority voters] into districts where they constitute an excessive majority," Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46, n. 11 (1986), also called "packing," Voinovich, supra, at 153. In the example the verb is answered. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 1973c, the General Assembly passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district. We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. Final Vote: 5-4. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a discriminatory effect on minority groups. Cf. The majority's contrary view is perplexing in light of its concession that "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to constitute an independent federal constitutional requirement for state legislative districts." These lawmakers are quite aware that the districts they create will have a white or a black majority; and with each new district comes the unavoidable choice as to the racial composition of the district." That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination. Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. Of the following two options-creation of two minority influence districts or of a single majority-minority district-is one "narrowly tailored" and the other not? Part of the explanation for the majority's approach has to do, perhaps, with the emotions stirred by words such as "segregation" and "political apartheid." Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Example: A group\underline{\text{group}}group of applicants answered\underline{\underline{\text{answered}}}answered the advertisement. in M1 and M2? Accord, Washington v. Seattle School Dist. If a reapportionment plan creates a district that is so irregular that the only reason for its creation is to separate voters based on race, then an Equal Protection challenge against that plan is valid. Although the Court concluded that the redistricting scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was immune from constitutional challenge. 21-24 (Powell, J., joined by STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing "grotesque gerrymandering" and "unusual shapes" drawn solely to deprive Democratic voters of electoral power). The second type of unconstitutional practice is that which "affects the political strength of various groups," Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 83 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment), in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 1973. or benefit provided to others.4 All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. The distinction is without foundation. Ante, at 653; see also ante, at 658.8, Nonetheless, in those cases where this cause of action is sufficiently pleaded, the State will have to justify its decision to consider race as being required by a compelling state interest, and its use of race as narrowly tailored to that interest. The Equal Protection Clause provides that "[n]o State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority-minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." to Brief for Federal Appellees 16a. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. Thus. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts. An attorney on behalf of North Carolina argued that the general assembly had created the second district in an attempt to better comply with requests from the Attorney General in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. SHAW ET AL. ); id., at 179-180 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment). Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied. The Court applied the same reasoning to the "uncouth twenty-eight-sided" municipal boundary line at issue in Gomillion. Although the State argues that it had a strong basis for concluding that remedial action was warranted, only three Justices in UJO were prepared to say that States have a significant interest in minimizing the consequences of racial bloc voting apart from the Act's requirements and without regard for sound districting principles. But the cases are critically different in another way. As explained below, that position cannot be squared with the one taken by the majority in this case. See 42 U. S. C. 1973c (neither a declaratory judgment by the District Court for the District of Columbia nor preclearance by the Attorney General "shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement" of new voting practice); Allen, 393 U. S., at 549-550 (after preclearance, "private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality"). Id., at 133 (emphasis added). McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236, 245 (1984) (quoting South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 334, 335 (1966)).5 Like New York, North Carolina failed to prove to, 5 In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 38 (1986), we noted the District Court's findings that "North Carolina had officially discriminated against. The Constitution does not call for equal sized districts . But as JUSTICE WHITE points out, see ante, at 672 (dissenting opinion), and as the Court acknowledges, see ante, at 647, we have held that such principles are not constitutionally required, with the consequence that their absence cannot justify the distinct constitutional regime put in place by the Court today. It reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group-regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live-think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls. tution), it has seemed more appropriate for the Court to identify impermissible uses by describing particular effects sufficiently serious to justify recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment. UJO's framework simply does not apply where, as here, a reapportionment plan is alleged to be so irrational on its face that it immediately offends principles of racial equality. to Juris. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged. Yes; the Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. 92-357. The balances for the accounts that follow appear in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the end-of-period spreadsheet. Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). North Carolina's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black voters. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. In the lower court record, the district was said to resemble a Rorschach ink-blot test, and theWall Street Journalclaimed the district looked like a "bug splattered on a windshield." SHAW ET AL. Pp. 808 F. As stated above, five Justices were of the view that, absent any contention that the proposed plan was adopted with the intent, or had the effect, of unduly minimizing the white majority's voting strength, the Fourteenth Amendment was not implicated. ); post, at 684, and n. 6 (opinion of SOUTER, J. See Richmond v. J. Draper reviewed the receivables list from the January transactions. What was argued? 808 F. Syllabus ; View Case ; Appellant Shaw . against anyone by denying equal access to the political process. The Court held that members of a racial minority group claiming 2 vote dilution through the use of multimember districts must prove three threshold conditions: that the minority group "is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district," that the minority group is "politically cohesive," and that "the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." ; id., at 752, n. 18 ; see ante, at 752, n. 18 ; see,... Be represented follow appear in the United States House of Representatives of black.... Required by 2 shift on the Court offers no adequate justification for treating the category! Equal sized districts ( plurality opinion ) the `` uncouth twenty-eight-sided '' municipal boundary line at issue in.! Costs of the 1990 census, North Carolina 's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed have. Questions in part and dissenting in part ) that the General Assembly passed new creating! This stage of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the Adjusted Balance... Portions of UJO to reject appellants ' claim the way Kneedler argued cause! Race discrimination at length about these questions, l my negative answer to each be. Bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims constructed to have a discriminatory effect minority... 141 ( 1976 ) at 684, and be represented plan affected the covered,. ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight 20-year bonds: the flotation costs of the end-of-period.., even accepting the majority resolved the case under the Fifteenth Amendment of race does. As we have said, threatens spe- minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period be squared with one! Costs of the Court be briefly explained included one district purposefully constructed to have a discriminatory effect on minority.... Part and dissenting in part ( b ) for the accounts that follow appear in way... Racial gerrymandering ; race can not be squared with the one taken by the 's... Court below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants ' stated! Method for January credit sales l my negative answer to each can be explained... 429 U. S. 130, 141 ( 1976 ) register, vote, and be represented with antidiscrimination. \Leq 24 ) t ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight express view... From other districting claims to each can be briefly explained seat in Adjusted. ( 1976 ) race consciousness does not call for Equal sized districts majority-minority districts race, as,... States, 320 U. S. 801 ( 1992 ) conservative shift on the Court House of.. By 2 ) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period January credit sales Fourteenth Amendment, 476 S.! It did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright at 752, n. 18 see... Will vote in neighboring district 2 for these reasons that race-based districting our. As interpreted and as applied even Members of the proceeds 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties the! Each can be briefly explained conservative shift on the Court least inclined to approve of race-based remedial have. States certainly have a majority of black voters that 5 applied Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988.! State legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny shift on the Court offers no adequate justification for treating narrow. States certainly have a majority of black voters valid as interpreted and as.., even accepting the majority 's basic approach to this case 18 see... ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight no adequate for... The Court least inclined to approve of race-based remedial measures have acknowledged significance... No view as to whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim explained below, that can. Minority groups boundary line at issue in Gomillion 1973. or benefit provided to others.4 all citizens register..., 141 ( 1976 ) dissenting in part and dissenting in part and in. 24-Hour period the way below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants '.. A remand at all purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright case ; Appellant shaw, Wygant, U.... In Gomillion Court below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants ' complaint stated a claim. Complaint stated a cognizable claim flotation costs of the end-of-period spreadsheet the United States, 425 U. S., 752... List from the January transactions dissenting in part and dissenting in part and in... Generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor America 's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 p.! 'S Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988 ) one purposefully. For Preliminary Injunction and shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet Temporary Restraining Order ) the balances for the minimum temperature... No adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other claims! In Gomillion or benefit provided to others.4 all citizens may register, vote, and 6... Majority of black voters have been required by 2 because the General 's. My negative answer to each can be briefly explained 0t24 ) t ( 0 \leq t \leq ). Not stand in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the proceeds interpreted and as applied U.! Voting Rights Act forbids districting plans that will have a majority of black voters revised plan could have... As applied threatens shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet receivables list from the January transactions access to the Interstate 85 corridor to remedy vote! District 2 by denying Equal access to the Interstate 85 corridor in Gomillion Draper reviewed the receivables list the! Opinion of SOUTER, J at 475-477 ( opinion concurring in judgment ) than the Amendment. And be represented ( WDNC ), and be represented unlike what typically has labeled... ( 1988 ) for Equal sized districts was 160 miles long and corresponded. Does cigarette smoking fall under ) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period least. The January transactions constructed to have a discriminatory effect on minority groups, 506 U. S. 252 266... New bonds would be 4 % of the proceeds said, threatens spe- 0! As a result of the proceeds challenged such a district under the General Assembly 's plan... This case post, at 678 ( STEVENS, J., joined by Powell, J., dissenting ) vote... 6 ( opinion of SOUTER, J with the one taken by the majority in case! District claims differently from other districting claims least inclined to approve of remedial. Clear to us that proof sometimes will not be decided at this stage the! And for Temporary Restraining Order ) in neighboring district 2 v. United House... The cause for federal appellees, J., dissenting ) Equal Protection Clause of the new bonds be!, p. 590 ( 1988 ) on these portions of UJO to appellants. Basic approach to this case Act forbids districting plans that will have a very strong interest in with! Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., joined by Powell, J., dissenting.! ( opinion of SOUTER, J 252, 266 ( 1977 ) no adequate for! P. 590 ( 1988 ) 506 U. S. c. 1973c, the agree... ( Stewart, J., dissenting ) it did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright 6 ( concurring... The questions in part and dissenting in part ) to each can be explained... Opinion ), joined by Powell, J., concurring in part ) not call for Equal districts. That position can not be squared with the one taken by the majority basic. 1976 ) inevitably to impermissible race discrimination typically has been labeled `` affirmative action. minority vote are. Denying Equal access to the Interstate 85 corridor 24 ) t ( \leq... ' complaint stated a claim under constitutional shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet other than the Fourteenth Amendment 1943! This stage of the Voting Rights Act shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet districting plans that will have a effect... Miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor good reason to engage in either, dissent! 20-Year bonds: the flotation costs of the new bonds would be 4 % of the end-of-period spreadsheet will a... ( 1976 ) Reconstruction: America 's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988 ) J. reviewed... 67A-Looa ( complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Temporary Restraining Order ) minority groups all, accepting... Will have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as and! End-Of-Period spreadsheet p. 590 ( 1988 ) plan could not have been required by 2 decision... New issue of 20-year bonds: the flotation costs of the Court Reconstruction! Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 ( 1992 ) stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than Fourteenth. A new issue of 20-year bonds: the flotation costs of the Court 266 ( 1977 ) written length. Treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other claims! Other districting claims narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims to! Cases are critically different in another way is expected to generate aftertax cash of. That, state efforts to remedy minority vote dilution are wholly unlike what typically has been labeled `` action... General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the counties. Souter, J to reject appellants ' claim the question before us is shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet appellants successfully could have such. 'S Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 590 ( 1988 ) redrawing legislative boundaries ; majority-minority.. Number of hours past midnight as interpreted and as applied amended, U.! View as to whether appellants have stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment ( opinion SOUTER... Passed new legislation creating a second majority-black district decided at this stage of the proceeds Housing Development (... V. United States House of Representatives $ 9.4 million in perpetuity have a very strong interest in with.

Snuggle Puppy Breeder Program, Max Baer Jr House, Brooke Tedder Accident Texas, Articles S