Document: 507 U.S. 25 113 S.Ct. 1075 122 L.Ed.2d 388 Joan GROWE, Secretary of State Minnesota, et al., appellants,v.James EMISON al. No. 91-1420. Argued Nov. 2, 1992. Decided Feb. 23, 1993. Syllabus * Shortly after a group Minnesota voters filed state-court action against the and other election officials, appellee similar essentially same officials in Federal District Court. Both suits alleged that, light 1990 census results, State's congressional legislative districts were malapportioned, violation Constitutions; federal suit contained additional claim that current diluted vote minority groups Minneapolis, § 2 Voting Rights Act 1965. sought declaration unlawful, judicial construction new if Legislature failed to act. After adopted districting plan, which numerous drafting errors, second was raising constitutional challenges districts; two consolidated. The Court set deadline for act on redistricting plans, but refused abstain or defer proceedings. state court, having found defective because issued preliminary plan correcting most those be held abeyance pending further by Legislature. Before court could take action, stayed proceedings; this vacated stay. When Governor vetoed Legislature's effort correct adopt districts, final order adopting its hearings plans submitted parties. issue however, own both congressional, permanently enjoined interference with implementation plans. found, effect, court's violated it did not contain "super-majority minority" Senate District; such district, designed create majority composed at least three separately identifiable groups. Held: 1. erred deferring timely efforts redraw districts. States have primary duty responsibility perform task, courts must their when State, through branch, has begun fashion address issue. Scott v. Germano, 381 407. Absent evidence these branches cannot duty, affirmatively obstruct, permit litigation impede, reapportionment. Judged principles, several respects: It reapportionment directed only Legislature, instead courts. an injunction treated provisional as "interfering" process. give legal effect under principles federalism comity embodied full faith credit statute. And actively prevented from issuing although appears prepared do so. Pp. ---- - ----. 2. conclusion Act. prerequisites identified Thornburg Gingles, 478 30, necessary establish dilution respect multimember plan—a is sufficiently large geographically compact constitute single-member political cohesion, bloc voting enables defeat minority's preferred candidate—are also vote-fragmentation district. In present case, even making dubious assumption compact, record contains no statistical anecdotal cohesion among distinct ethnic language combined Gingles preconditions ignored unattainable. 782 F.Supp. 427, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous John R. Tunheim, St. Paul, MN, appellants, Sol. Gen. Kenneth W. Starr, Washington, DC, amicus curiae supporting Bruce Donald Willis, appellees. Justice SCALIA 1 This case raises important issues regarding propriety Court's pursuing Minnesota's face seeking relief; 1965, 79 Stat. 437, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. January 1991, responsible administering elections, claiming Fourteenth Amendment Constitution Article 4, Constitution. Cotlow Growe, C8-91-985. plaintiffs asserted results revealed significant change distribution population, requested declare unlawful draw February parties stipulated census, challenged unconstitutional. Supreme appointed Special Redistricting Panel (composed one appellate judge district judges) preside over case. 3 March defendants, Emison 427. (who include members various racial minorities) addition raised objections Act, 1973, alleging needlessly fragmented Indian reservations divided population Minneapolis. declaratory relief continuing jurisdiction any develop A three-judge panel pursuant 28 2284(a). 4 While actions getting underway, holding public on, designing, May, Chapter 246, Minn.Stat. §§ 2.403-2.703 (Supp.1991), repealed prior 1983 apportionment. soon recognized 246 many technical errors—mistaken compass directions, incorrect street names, noncontiguous few instances double representation. By August, committees had curative legislation, File 1596 House 1726 (collectively, 1596), adjourned late due reconvene until 6, 5 Later another again State. Benson 4-91-603. plaintiffs, who Republican leaders House, allegations. consolidated suit; well Representatives Senate, intervened. 6 With out session, committees' proposed measures pending, considering issues, granted defendants' motion proceedings denied, suit, allow first review or, act, court-ordered plan. 20, 1992 special masters contingent event reapportion eight 7 Meanwhile, concluded (in October) applied written (i.e., errors), Constitutions, invited submit alternative based 246. mid-October arguments violations November, containing corrections (though stylistic corrections) 1596. (Since party responded concerning violations, run afoul Act.) putting into 21, 1992, acted then. Two weeks later, argument, indicated would release revised version days. 8 early December, before all "attempting enforce implement [ ] adoption relating Congressional redistricting." App. Juris. Statement 154. explained prevent interfering redistrict jurisdiction. mentioned allegations grounds injunction, aid jurisdiction, see 1651. One dissented. 9 Four days later subject still conditioned failure lawful provided, mid-January. obstacle removed 10, when, upon application we injunction. 502 ----, 112 855, 116 764. 10 reconvened January, houses approved drafted previous October. Governor, legislation. On requiring used general elections. shortly proposals redistricting, 17 competing 11 enjoining 448-449 (Minn.1992). modified "fails provide equitable cure Act," id., 440, view required constitutes clear majority. rejected basis referred policy expressed resolution See Minn. Const., Art. 2; H.R.Con.Res. 77th Leg., Reg.Sess. (1991). Judge MacLaughlin dissented part. unanimous, concluding preexisting 1982 I, Although received earlier month, masters. Finally, retained ensure permanent 12 March, "fully plan" doing view, reached equality "without sufficient regard preservation municipal county boundaries." Juris.Statement 445-446. 13 Appellants stay appeal. BLACKMUN 91-1420, Mar. 11, chambers). We noted probable 503 1557, 118 206 (1992). II 14 challenge appellants contend 407, 85 1525, 477 (1965) (per curiam ), Panel's agree. 15 dispute consider complaints them. Of course often find themselves exercising concurrent matter, happens generally need neither dismiss it) nor withhold concluded). McClellan Carland, 217 268, 282, 30 501, 504, 54 L.Ed. 762 (1910). rare circumstances, dictate otherwise. abstention necessary, example, difficult questions law bearing matters policy, been invoked restrain ongoing criminal Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. United States, 424 800, 814-817, 96 1236, 1244-1246, 47 483 (1976) (collecting examples). deferral, causing "stay[ hands," will mooted presented different posture following Railroad Comm'n Texas Pullman Co., 312 496, 61 643, 645, 971 (1941).1 16 context, judges consideration disputes involving where highly task itself. invalidated Illinois' entered scheme might adopt. An previously attacking scheme. Illinois (subsequent order) invalid, confidence General Assembly enact during then scheduled end July upcoming 1966 elections conducted constitutionally valid disapproved action. "should hand," said, failing so overlooked teaching role redistricting. U.S., 409, S.Ct., 1527. 18 "The power judiciary require formulate appropriate cases specifically encouraged. 19 ". . .The remanded directions enter fixing reasonable time within agencies Illinois, including Court, may validly Senate; provided accomplished ample utilized election. ." Ibid. (citations omitted). Today renew our adherence derive recognition leaves apportionment "We say once what said occasions: primarily legislature body, rather than court." Chapman Meier, 420 1, 27, 95 751, 766, 766 (1975). fail obstruct impede it. 20 December proceedings, error. seems mistaken Thus, established described ignoring possibility legitimacy itself But doctrine Germano prefers agents issuance (conditioned acceptable January), far being federally enjoinable "interference," precisely sort supervision supra, 1526 (citing cases). 21 Nor reasons offered support departure principles. true while complaint never does identical; focuses nature requested: can primacy designing compels defer. 22 concern lack orderly appeal, primaries, judgment noting allows losing 90 Minn.Rule Civ.App.Proc. 104.01. relevance speed review. requires "within [upcoming] election," election, requirement ignore reality exigent circumstances—during brief interval between completion decennial season next even-numbered year. Our long held, reflects improbability completing 23 useful describe ought happened each (nearly opinion). That order, declaring unconstitutional replace it, altered status quo: became Minnesota. At very least, elementary statute, 1738, obligated treating simply available choosing. Atlantic Coast Line Co. Locomotive Engineers, 398 281, 286, 296, 1739, 1742, 1747, 26 234 (1970). words, empowered entertain plaintiffs' claims extent Cf. Wise Lipscomb, 437 535, 540, 98 2493, 2497, 57 411 (1978) (opinion WHITE, J.). 24 judgment, issuing. wrongfully developing mid-January submission rendered nullity 10. net delay submissions submissions. acknowledge breath development next. which, acted, proceed. here explicitly solely given should decide reapportionment, wished avoid intervention. justified apparent fault itself, primaries. abstention. fact (through injunction) cause delay, nonetheless appeared fully manner opinion. either unwilling unable elections.2 What occurred last-minute federal-court rescue electoral process, race beat finish line. wrong, tripped course. III there prove portion city 1973.3 F.Supp., 439. Choosing apply 106 2752, 92 (1986), proceeded directly "totality circumstances" test Section 2(b) dilution. rejected, 1596, masters' includes stretching south around downtown area, northern part link populations. oddly shaped creation, 59, 43 percent black 60 minority, groups.4 "[j]udicial experience, past elections," super-majority Minneapolis comply 440. analysis because, correct, right deny 27 As initial produced necessitated remedy. For almost decade season, use agreed census. More importantly, declared 30. Once issued, moot, unless related superseding ever resulted hold hearing request argument validity particular plan; discussion focus "dilution" unclear, clearly conclude remedy unspecified "fail[ed] affirmative adequately protect rights." Id., 448. dissenting perceived, 452, n. (MacLaughlin, concurring part), lacking turn merits position. 29 precedent (and hence justify remedy), plaintiff threshold conditions. First, "that [the group] district"; second, politically cohesive"; third, white votes enable usually candidate." 50-51, 2766-2767. considered whether factors scheme, so-called "vote fragmentation" claim. 46-47, 12, 2764, 12. have, stated occasions at-large pose greater threats minority-voter participation process see, e.g., 47, 13, 13; 87, 2785 (O'CONNOR, judgment); Rogers Lodge, 458 613, 616-617, 102 3272, 3274-3275, 73 1012 (1982); Burns Richardson, 384 73, 88, 86 1286, 1294, 376 (1966)—which why strongly federal-court-ordered Connor Finch, 431 415, 97 1828, 1834, 52 465 (1977). peculiar vote-dilution (more dangerous) higher showing Certainly continue apply: "geographically majority" "minority cohesion" showings are needed potential elect representative choice some 50, 17, 2765, 17. "majority voting" estab lish thwarts distinctive submerging larger 51, 2766. Unless points established, wrong remedy.5 make compact," quite obviously higher-than-usual showings. Assuming (without deciding) permissible combine purposes assessing compliance agglomerated violation, proof more essential. Badillo Stockton, 956 F.2d 884, 891 (CA9 1992); Concerned Citizens Hardee County Bd. Comm'rs, 906 524 (CA 1990); Campos Baytown, 840 1240, 1244 (CA5 1988), cert. 492 905, 109 3213, 564 (1989). Since presume single group, 46, made sense effect) indulge presumption agglomeration 31 satisfied acknowledged, "contains evidence" (whether groups) 436, lacking. Recognizing void, relied article identifying national phenomenon " 'all inevitable.' Ibid., quoting Howard & Howard, Dilemma Act—Recognizing Emerging Political Equality Norm, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 1615, 1625 (1983). patterns substitute Compare 58-61, 2770-2771 (summarizing case). "does assume existence voting; it." 2764. 32 33 Its (which merely option) erroneous. Having defects, error appellants. 34 reversed, instructions dismiss. 35 So ordered. syllabus Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 287, 50 499. form "abstention," 501-502, 645-646. To bring clearly, distinction circumstances dismissal postponing merits, preferable speak "deferral." deferral recognizes prematurely resolve constitutionality just involve drawn precinct boundaries Minn.Stat 204B.14 subd. 3, advance caucuses. conventions place April May. section provides: "(a) No qualification prerequisite standard, practice, procedure shall imposed subdivision denial abridgement citizen account color, contravention guarantees forth 1973b(f)(2) title, subsection (b) section. "(b) (a) if, totality shown processes leading nomination equally open class citizens protected less opportunity electorate participate representatives choice. elected office circumstance considered: Provided, nothing establishes numbers equal proportion population." These percentages refer total population. presumably standard remedied) looked to, district's age. See, Romero Pomona, 883 1418, 1425-1426, 1989) repeatedly refers 48, pass aspect expressly declined whether, alleges practice impairs ability influence, alter, geographical compactness suffice. reach question either: minimization influence plan), former reviewing

Category: 8