Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Martin Cromartie, et al. (05/17/1999)

By: Gina George, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Does the way North Carolinas 12th Congressional District is drawn violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Brief

At the request of the U.S. Justice Department in 1992, North Carolina created two majority-black voting districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Residents in the two voting districts sued the state, claiming that the new plan violated their rights for equal protection because race predominated in the drawing of district lines. In Shaw v. Reno in 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor, holding that race should not be a factor in congressional districting.

After the state redrew its districts in 1996, complaints were again filed in federal court. In Shaw v. Hunt, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 12th Congressional District created by the revised plan violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

North Carolinas General Assembly enacted a new bipartisan plan in March l997. The legislatures goal in the new plan was to assure that race not be a predominant factor and that the states existing congressional political party balance be maintained.

The plan created six Democratic districts and six Republican districts. The districts preserved the partisan cores of their 1992 predecessors, yet their lines were significantly different. They reassigned more than 25 percent of the state's population and nearly 25 percent of its geographic area. The most dramatic changes were in the 12th District, which contained less than 70 percent of its original population and only about 40 percent of its original geographic area.

The 12th District, as drawn, is 95 miles long and connects black population centers along Interstate 85 from Greensboro to Charlotte, though in contrast to its earlier makeup, the district went from a majority-minority district to one that is 54 percent white. Its U.S. Representative is Democrat Melvin Watt, who, when first elected in 1992, became one of only two black congressman from North Carolina in the 20th century.

Twelve of the seventeen African-American members of the North Carolina House voted against the plan because they believed it did not adequately take into account the interests of the state's African-American residents.

Residents claimed again that the 12th District and the 1st District were ""unconstitutional racial gerrymanders"" and challenged the plan. The state argued in response that the new lines had been drawn not primarily for reasons of race but to preserve the 12th District's Democratic majority.

A divided special three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, ruled in April 1998 in favor of the residents. It concluded that ""the General Assembly, in redistricting, used criteria with respect to District 12 that are facially race driven. District 12 was drawn to collect precincts with high racial identification rather than political identification."" The majority declared the plan for the 12th District unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from conducting any primary or general elections under the 1997 plan. It found that the plan for the 1st District was constitutionally sound.

In dissent, U.S. District Judge Sam J. Ervin, III, wrote that the residents did not provide direct evidence that the states plan violated their rights and that the court owes substantial deference to the legislature.

Later in April 1998, the request of North Carolinas Attorney General to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the three-judge panels ruling was denied by a 6-3 vote.

On May 21, 1998, the General Assembly enacted an interim congressional redistricting plan, which was approved by the district court and precleared by the Justice Department. The interim plan was in effect for the 1998 elections and is to be in effect for the elections in the year 2000.

In what was to be the high courts third review of North Carolinas districts in the 1990s, the state also sought guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on how it should draw lines after the 2000 census.

On Sept. 29, 1998, the U.S Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the case.

On May 17, 1999, a unanimous Court reversed. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas found that though the evidence was in dispute, it tended to support an inference that the North Carolina General Assembly drew district lines with an impermissible racial motive. The Court pointed to affidavits of two state legislators and an expert who testified that the relevant data supported a political explanation at least as well as a racial explanation for the district's lines. Therefore, the Court held it was error to have granted summary judgment against North Carolina when it was possible to prove that the state had engaged in constitutional political gerrymandering, even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if those responsible for drawing the district are conscious of that fact.