Legal Document

507 U.S. 146 113 S.Ct. 1149 122 L.Ed.2d 500 George VOINOVICH, Governor of Ohio, et al., Appellantsv.Barney QUILTER, Speaker Pro Tempore Ohio House Representatives, al. No. 91-1618. Argued Dec. 8, 1992. Decided March 2, 1993. Syllabus * Pursuant to the Constitution's requirement that electoral districts for state legislature be reapportioned every 10 years, appellant James Tilling drafted and apportionment board adopted in 1991 an plan created several which a majority population is member specific minority group. Appellees, Democratic members who voted against others, filed suit District Court, asking invalidated on grounds it violated § 2 Voting Rights Act 1965 Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments. A three-judge district court ordered reconsider plan, holding prohibits wholesale creation majority-minority unless necessary remedy violation; board, held, had failed show such violation. The Court reaffirmed when reviewed board's revised 1992 rejecting appellants' argument should not have without finding that, under totality circumstances, diluted voting strength. In addition, held Amendment by applying creating intentionally purpose political advantage. It further departing from all nearly equal population. Held: 1. does violate Act. Pp. ____. (a) Appellees raise "influence-dilution" claim. They contend packing black voters few with disproportionately large voter population, deprived them larger number they would been influential capable electing their candidates choice help cross-over votes white voters. While this has decided whether claim viable assumes resolving case appellees stated cognizable (b) Plaintiffs can prevail dilution only if State's scheme effect diminishing or abridging strength protected class. erred are statutory violation, since contains no per se prohibitions any particular type district. Instead, focuses exclusively consequences apportionment. also mistakenly placed burden justifying requiring appellants justify districts. Section 2(b) places at least initial proving apportionment's invalidity plaintiff's shoulders. Although federal courts may order violation law, prohibition extend States. barred intervening absence precisely because domain States conduct first place. (c) applied three-part vote-dilution test Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 30, 50-51, 106 2752, 2766, 92 25, rejected appellees' ground demonstrate Gingles' third precondition—sufficient bloc frustrate election group's candidate choice. specifically found, agree, suffer racially polarized voting. 2. Court's diluting reasons clearly erroneous. Tilling's preference over law he believed two conflict inference intentional discrimination; demonstrates obedience Supremacy Clause. Nor fact Tilling, Republican, possessed documents speculating about possible discriminatory strategies might use strategy. Nothing record indicates relied those preparing plan. Indeed, sources, as National Association Advancement Colored People, Conference Branches, were wholly unlikely engage tolerate discrimination This expresses view relationship between race-conscious redistricting; concludes was clear error. 3. When found maximum total deviation ideal size exceeded 10%, established prima facie required deviation. attempted do so, arguing resulted Ohio's constitutional policy favor preserving county boundaries. However, deviations excess 10% cannot justified subdivision On remand, consider using analysis employed Brown Thomson, 462 835, 843-846, 103 2690, 2696-2697, 77 214, Mahan Howell, 410 315, 325-330, 93 979, 985-987, 35 320, requires determine could reasonably said advance policy, and, could, resulting disparities exceed limits. Reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. N. Victor Goodman, Columbus, OH, appellants. Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Armistead W. Gilliam, Jr., Dayton, appellees. Justice O'CONNOR 1 yet another dispute arising out legislative redistricting reapportionment. See, e.g., Growe Emison, ----, 1075, --- ---- (1993). Today we dominated 1965, 79 Stat. 437, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Under Constitution, must reapportion years. Const., Art. XI, 1991, selected draft proposed After conducting public hearings meeting historically underrepresented groups, included eight so-called districts—districts minor amendments 3-to-2 vote along party lines. three Republican plan; Democrats it. 794 F.Supp. 695, 698, 716-717 (ND 1992); App. Juris. Statement 160a-167a, 183a. 3 Barney Quilter Ferguson, Board various electors legislators lawsuit United Northern seeking plan's invalidation. alleged 1973, Amendments Constitution. F.Supp., 695-696. According appellees, "packed" constitute majority. This, contended, minimized select view, "influence" but predictable voters, elect See 141a-142a. Appellants, contrast, argued actually enhanced providing "safe" minority-dominated pointed out, compared favorably 1981 backing Branches (Ohio NAACP). 706. 4 heard Relying statements made course reapportionment hearings, "whenever possible." Id., 698. contention wherever possible. 699. "wholesale districts" " 'remedy' 701. therefore new remedying 702. 5 Judge Dowd dissented, majority's "place[d] cart before horse." 709. his require State Rather, create desire, so long result. Because balloting thought challenge fail. 710. 6 responded its adjusted correct "technical" errors Supreme identified independent review five majority-black 258a-263a. however, satisfied proof. issued 10, 1992, "the [b]oard fail[ed] once again districts, thus rendering submitted, violative 1965." 756, 757 Ohio). then appointed master prepare Ibid. Once again, dissented. 758. 7 Nine days later, 19, reaffirming impermissible 128a-141a. restated court's conclusion prove Specifically, noted racial voting, [ability voters] both choice, ha[d] elected sustained period time." 130a. "clever sophistry" strength: 8 "Having implemented [appellants] suggest now establish prerequisite removing remedy. Actually, task difficult seems. circumstances reveals coalitional whites blacks. As result, repeatedly 35% Against background, dilutive votes. . ." 141a, 142a (footnotes omitted). 9 concluded intentionally" advantage, well. 142a-143a. Finally, departed 146a-148a. 31, primary elections General Assembly rescheduled. 760 April 20, granted application stay orders, 503 112 1663, 118 382; June 1, probable jurisdiction, 504 2299, ----. We reverse judgment remand proceedings among violates Amendment. II 11 Congress enacted effectuate Amendment's guarantee citizen's right shall "be denied abridged account race, color, previous condition servitude," Amdt. 15. NAACP New York, 413 345, 350, 2591, 2595, 37 648 (1973). 2(a) imposition practice procedure "results denial abridgement citizen race color." 2(b), relevant part, specifies if: 12 "[B]ased shown processes leading nomination equally open participation class citizens subsection section less opportunity than other electorate participate process representatives choice." 1973(b). 13 "interact[ing] social historical conditions," impairs ability basis 47, 2764, 25 (1986). A. 14 context single-member usual device power manipulation politically cohesive group enough good chance where constitutes Dividing none prevent choice: If each candidate, fragmented will unable muster sufficient carry victory. 15 fragmentation concentration within How "packing" dilute conceptualize. group, example, numbers So apportioned, inevitably assuming sufficiently cohesive. But packed into super-majority, assured candidates. recognized "[d]ilution caused" either "by dispersal blacks ineffective excessive majority." 46, n. 11, 11. 16 case, allege prevented constituting additional "influence constituted minority. Black influence course, dictate outcomes independently. nonetheless numerous attracts influence- claims Growe, U.S., 5, S.Ct., 1084, 5; see supra, 46-47, nn. 11-12, 11-12 (leaving possibility influence-dilution claims); nor decide question today. assume B 17 challenged here, invariably minimize maximize neither. one hand, necessarily leaves fewer diminishes black-voter predominantly enhance Placing sizeable ensures able Which has, all, depends entirely facts case. 18 initially unnecessary circumstances. fact, did believe find all. instead disagree. types districts: says nothing certain parties, even based partisan concerns. Only denying 2; demonstrated, simply speak matter. Gingles expressly held: "[E]lectoral devices considered result unequal access process." 2764. ruling validity; failure 19 decision flawed reason By State. squarely "it process. 1973(b) (emphasis added). "show[ing]" prohibited effect, plaintiff; surely intended own scheme. 2764 (plaintiffs results process); id., 49 15, 2766 "prove awarded relief"). relieved solely departure statutorily allocation burdens finds support statute, error impose 20 Of law. 1084. mean powers similarly limited. Quite opposite true: Federal States, courts, Time emphasized 'reapportionment primarily duty responsibility through body, rather court.' 1081 (quoting Chapman Meier, 420 27, 95 751, 766, 766 (1975)). Accord, Connor Finch, 431 407, 414, 97 1828, 1833, 52 465 (1977) ("We 'legislative matter consideration determination' Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 586, 84 1362, 1394, 506 (1964)). "States derive authority Act, provisions law," Brief Amicus Curiae 12, bound respect States' choices contravene requirements. Cf. Katzenbach Morgan, 384 641, 647-648, 86 1717, 1721, 828 (1966) ("Under distribution effected qualifications officers" valid Constitution statute). 21 Appellees' complaint conscious Equal Protection Clause; below address issue; neither raises here. Accordingly, express how evaluated. hold plaintiffs C 22 "ha[d] votes." 141a. Again 23 claiming multimember threshold conditions. First, 'is geographically compact district.' Second, cohesive.' Third, 'that enable usually defeat minority's preferred candidate.' 1084 2766). apparently factors inapplicable 699 ("Gingles' preconditions applicable districts"). apply challenges well 1084-85. 24 Had mechanically regard nature For precondition, single district, modified eliminated analyzing arguendo actionable Supra, majority, being assistance need factor "racially voting." 700-701. 132a-134a, 139a-140a. Even agree. Tr. Oral Arg. 25. Here, "in significant chosen inferior voters." 49, therefore, reversed. III reasons. applies claims; never inconsistent Beer 425 130, 142-143, 14, 96 1357, 1364, 47 629 (1976). Nonetheless, precise scope speaks like respondents', still reversed: Its Mobile Bolden, 446 55, 62, 100 1490, 1497, 64 (1980) (plurality opinion); 101-103, 1516-1518 (WHITE, dissenting); 90-92, 1511-1513 (STEVENS, concurring judgment); 80, 1506 (BLACKMUN, result). 26 cited pieces evidence finding. drafter, disregarded requirements contrary 142a-143a, 8. Clause possession according court, tantamount "a road-map detailing [one could] gerrymander." 143a, 9. Apparently, sought Party's ibid. explain documents. Contrary implication opinion, set plans Republicans. Democrat who, concerned apportionment, gerrymandering Republicans engage. 99-100. That opposing speculated strategy indicate And 27 sources including NAACP, Elected Cleveland, Ohio. incorporated much NAACP's fully supported 726-729; 164a-167a, 269a-270a. fails directly contradicts intent, doing, redistricting. Jewish Organizations Williamsburgh, Inc. Carey, 430 144, 155-165, 996, 1004-1009, 51 229 opinion). Neither asserts itself properly discriminated question, intent IV 28 size. "of person's given weight representatives." Connor, 416, 1834. inflexible one. 29 "[M]inor mathematical equality insufficient make invidious justification Our decisions established, general matter, falls category deviations. creates State." 842-843, 2696, 214 (1983) (internal quotation marks citations 30 10%. 148a. discrimination, Appellants just Arts. VII-XI. "plan 'may [the] rational policy' boundaries "and, 'whether pursuit th[e] limits.' Brown, 843, 2696 328, 986, 320 (1973)). Rather undertaking inquiry, subdivisions. contrary. supra (upholding 16% objective integrity lines); supra. Mahan, 985-987. 31 reversed, remanded conformity opinion. 32 ordered. syllabus part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Classification Label: 1