Bartlett v. Strickland

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a voting rights case that could have a significant impact on state redistricting plans following the 2010 census.

The case surrounds a 2003 redistricting plan in North Carolina, under which the General Assembly split the state’s 18th District between portions of two counties in order to create one district with a 39 percent African-American voting age population. Since taking effect, voters have elected Rep. Thomas Wright, a Democrat who is black, to the district in the past two elections.

The Pender County Board of Commissioners sued the state in May 2004, contending that the district map violated the state Constitution’s “whole county” provision by slicing one county into two districts.

State officials defended the move, arguing that the district had to divide the county in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects racial and ethnic minorities when districts lines are drawn. A three-judge panel of the North Carolina Superior Court agreed, ruling that state lawmakers had no other choice so as to ensure black voters could elect a representative.

In August 2007, the state Supreme Court reversed, ruling 4-2 that the geographic configuration and racial composition of the district did not fall under the mandate of the Voting Rights Act since it does not have a majority African-American population. It ordered the map redrawn following the 2008 elections.

In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper argued that the justices must intervene to resolve a split among five circuit courts and at least two state supreme courts.

“The answer to this question will affect the voting rights of minorities throughout the country,” the petition argues. “Potential districts that could elect minority candidates may not be drawn if redistricting authorities feel constrained by a numerical majority requirement, while other minority districts may be unnecessarily packed, often at great costs to geographic compactness, solely to assure a numerical majority.”

Four other states, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters wrote friend-of-the-court briefs, also asking the court to intervene in the case.

The justices, who bypassed the issue in a 2006 decision involving redistricting in Texas, will hear oral arguments in the case during the fall term.

Question presented:

Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district’s population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.

In a decision that could have a significant impact on state redistricting plans following the 2010 census, a sharply-divided Supreme Court held that minority voters don’t qualify for a key protection of the Voting Rights Act unless they make up a majority of voters in a district.

The case surrounds a 2003 redistricting plan in North Carolina, under which the General Assembly split the state’s 18th District between portions of two counties in order to create one district with a 39 percent African-American voting age population. Since taking effect, voters have elected Rep. Thomas Wright, a Democrat who is black, to the district in the past two elections.

The Pender County Board of Commissioners sued the state in May 2004, contending that the district map violated the state Constitution’s “whole county” provision by slicing one county into two districts.

State officials defended the move, arguing that the district had to divide the county in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects racial and ethnic minorities when districts lines are drawn. A three-judge panel of the North Carolina Superior Court agreed, ruling that state lawmakers had no other choice so as to ensure black voters could elect a representative.

In August 2007, the state Supreme Court reversed, ruling 4-2 that the geographic configuration and racial composition of the district did not fall under the mandate of the Voting Rights Act since it does not have a majority African-American population. It ordered the map redrawn following the 2008 elections.

In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper argued that the justices must intervene to resolve a split among five circuit courts and at least two state supreme courts.

“The answer to this question will affect the voting rights of minorities throughout the country,” the petition argues. “Potential districts that could elect minority candidates may not be drawn if redistricting authorities feel constrained by a numerical majority requirement, while other minority districts may be unnecessarily packed, often at great costs to geographic compactness, solely to assure a numerical majority.”

Four other states, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters wrote friend-of-the-court briefs, also asking the court to intervene in the case.

The justices, who bypassed the issue in a 2006 decision involving redistricting in Texas, heard oral arguments in the case during the fall term.

On March 9, a divided Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision.

“Nothing in Section 2 grants special protection to a minority group’s right to form political coalitions,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito in the court’s controlling opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice David H. Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer each filed their own dissenting opinion as well.

Ginsburg called on Congress to overturn the decision. “Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court,” she wrote. “The legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of Section 2.”

Question presented:

Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district’s population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.