Opinion ID: 1296917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Federal Role in Legislative Redistricting

Text: Although the respective state legislatures maintain primary responsibility for redistricting and reapportionment of legislative districts, such procedures must comport with federal law. Interpretation of the federal limitations upon the redistricting process is unnecessary to the resolution of the instant case. Nonetheless, as these requirements necessarily serve as limitations upon the state legislative redistricting process, we find it helpful to describe, at least briefly, the federal law in this area. The applicable provisions include (1) one-person, one-vote principles requiring some measure of population equality between state legislative districts as articulated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and their progeny; and (2) the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the VRA), as amended, to protect against voting discrimination, as proscribed under the Fifteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973-1973p (1994); Lopez v. Monterey Cty., 525 U.S. 266, 269, 119 S.Ct. 693, 696, 142 L.Ed.2d 728, 734 (1999). Section 2 of the VRA generally provides that states or their political subdivisions may not impose any voting qualification or prerequisite that impairs or dilutes, on account of race or color, a citizen's opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973a, 1973b; Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 43, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2762, 92 L.Ed.2d 25, 42 (1986). The primary purpose underlying section 5 of the VRA is to avoid retrogression, i.e., a change in voting procedures which would place the members of a racial or language minority group in a less favorable position than they had occupied before the change with respect to the opportunity to vote effectively. 28 C.F.R. § 51.54(a) (2001); see also Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140-42, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 1363-64, 47 L.Ed.2d 629, 638-40 (1976). To effectuate its remedial objectives, the VRA requires jurisdictions covered by section 5 that seek to enact or administer any change in a voting standard, practice, or procedure to submit the proposed change to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) for preclearance or, alternatively, to obtain a declaratory ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c; see also Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 323, 120 S.Ct. 866, 869, 145 L.Ed.2d 845, 853 (2000). The State of North Carolina is not a covered jurisdiction for section 5 purposes. See Lopez, 525 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 693, 142 L.Ed.2d at 741 (noting that seven states ... are currently partially covered: California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota). Forty of this State's one hundred counties, however, are covered jurisdictions and are subject to section 5 requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c; 28 C.F.R. § 51.4(c) & app. to pt. 51, at 96-98 (2001); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 634, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 2820, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 520 (1993). When the State enacts voting changes that affect these counties, the changes must be precleared before they are administered. See Lopez, 525 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 693, 702, 142 L.Ed.2d at 740-41 (stating that United Jewish Orgs. of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 97 S.Ct. 996, 51 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977), and Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996), reveal a clear assumption by this Court that [section] 5 preclearance is required where a noncovered State effects voting changes in covered counties). The VRA does not command a state to adopt any particular legislative reapportionment plan, but rather prevents the enforcement of redistricting plans having the purpose or effect of diluting the voting strength of legally protected minority groups.