It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. the group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of the 10 counties through which District 12 passes, 5 are cut into 3 different districts; even towns are divided. given $1,000\$1,000$1,000 in food stamps to supplement his $1,000\$1,000$1,000 ); post, at 684, and n. 6 (opinion of SOUTER, J. (1986) (teacher layoffs), electoral districting calls for decisions that nearly always require some consideration of race for legitimate reasons where there is a racially mixed population. The VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups. Id., at 53-54. The largest concentrations of black citizens live in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the northern part. 3:92CV71-P (WDNC)). Under either formulation, it is irrefutable that appellants in this proceeding likewise have failed to state a claim. Its central purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. Ibid. But even assuming that it does, there is no question that appellants have not alleged the requisite discriminatory effects. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752, n. 18 (1973)-but because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines. Supp., at 472-473. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 291 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). "As long as members of racial groups have [a] commonality of interest" and "racial bloc voting takes place," he argues, "legislators will have to take race into account" in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Supp., at 472. In other words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, it could not be explained on grounds other than race. Id., at 357 (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants maintain that the General Assembly's revised plan could not have been required by 2. 1. 21-24 (Powell, J., joined by STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing "grotesque gerrymandering" and "unusual shapes" drawn solely to deprive Democratic voters of electoral power). The majority, however, accepted the District Court's finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the districts were in fact drawn on racial lines. The shape of the district at issue in this case is indeed so bizarre that few other examples are ever likely to carry the unequivocal implication of impermissible use of race that the Court finds here. The District Court below relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants' claim. Further, it goes beyond the province of the Court to decide this case. to Juris. When a district obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than their constituency as a whole. Supp., at 476-477 (Voorhees, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Attorney General objected to the plan on the ground that a second district could have been created to give effect to minority voting strength in the State's south-central to southeastern region. There is no support for this distinction in UJO, and no authority in the cases relied on by the Court either. Id., at 141-142; see also Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 370-371 (1975) (annexation that reduces percentage of blacks in population satisfies 5 where postannexation districts "fairly reflect" current black voting strength). Supreme Court rulings in the Shaw v. Reno (1995) and the Shelby County vs. Holder (2013) cases relied heavily on the reasoning behind the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965). Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation. The second majority-black district, District 12, is even more unusually shaped. In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448,524-525, n. 3 (1980) (Stewart, J., dissenting) ("No person in [UJOJ was deprived of his electoral franchise"); Regents of Univ. Dissenting Opinion (Harlan):. See ante, at 647. We also do not decide whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. 91-2038, p. 43a (Complaint in Pope v. Blue, No. 506 U. S. 1019 (1992). Instead, it is the State that must rebut the allegation that race was taken into account, a fact that, together with the legislators' consideration of ethnic, religious, and other group characteristics, I had thought we practically took for granted, see supra, at 660. A reapportionment plan would not be narrowly tailored to the goal of avoiding retrogression if the State went beyond what was reasonably necessary to avoid retrogression. a majority-minority district does not unfairly minimize the voting power of any other group, the Constitution does not justify, much less mandate, such obstruction. What appellants object to is redistricting legislation that is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification. 633, 637 (1983). It is true, of course, that one's vote may be more or less effective depending on the interests of the other individuals who are in one's district, and our cases recognize the reality that members of the same race often have shared interests. Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46-51 (1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place,l legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt.2 One need look. It is shortsighted as well, for a regularly shaped district can just as effectively effectuate racially discriminatory gerrymandering as an odd-shaped one.9 By focusing on looks rather than impact, the majority "immediately casts attention in the wrong direction-toward superficialities of shape and size, rather than toward the political realities of district composition." The balances for the accounts that follow appear in the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the end-of-period spreadsheet. Three Justices approved the New York statute, in part, precisely because it adhered to traditional districting principles: "[WJe think it permissible for a State, employing sound districting principles such as compactness and population equality, to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted by creating districts that will afford fair representation to the members of those racial groups who are sufficiently numerous and whose residential patterns afford the opportunity of creating districts in which they will be in the majority.". 442 U. S., at 272. Is it more "narrowly tailored" to create an irregular majority-minority district as opposed to one that is compact but harms other state interests such as incumbency protection or the representation of rural interests? Although I would leave this question for another day, I would note that even then courts have insisted on "some showing of injury to assure that the district court can impose a meaningful remedy." Hence, I see no need. the community, they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection"); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 178-183, and nn. Final Vote: 5-4. It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. These principles apply not only to legislation that contains explicit racial distinctions, but also to those "rare" statutes that, although race neutral, are, on their face, "unexplainable on grounds other than race." 5. Alabama's exercise in geometry was but one example of the racial discrimination in voting that persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. Pp. The United States Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could hear and rule on cases in which plaintiffs allege that re-apportionment plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. JUSTICE SOUTER does not adequately explain why these harms are not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. He read JUSTICE WHITE'S opinion in UJO to authorize race-based reapportionment only when the State employs traditional districting principles such as compactness and contiguity. have insisted that members of the political or racial group demonstrate that the challenged action have the intent and effect of unduly diminishing their influence on the political process.1 Although this severe burden has limited the number of successful suits, it was adopted for sound reasons. Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters. Management has a target ratio of accounts payable to long-term debt of .15. 4 The majority's use of "segregation" to describe the effect of districting here may suggest that it carries effects comparable to school segregation making it subject to like scrutiny. See 42 U. S. C. 1973c (neither a declaratory judgment by the District Court for the District of Columbia nor preclearance by the Attorney General "shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement" of new voting practice); Allen, 393 U. S., at 549-550 (after preclearance, "private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality"). The state appellees assert that the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts is the most precise way-indeed the only effective way-to overcome the effects of racially polarized voting. But even recast as a Fourteenth Amendment case, Gomillion does not assist the majority, for its focus was on the alleged effect of the city's action, which was to exclude black voters from the municipality of Tuskegee. 9 As has been remarked, "[d]ragons, bacon strips, dumbbells and other strained shapes are not always reliable signs that partisan (or racial or ethnic or factional) interests are being served, while the most regularly drawn district may turn out to have been skillfully constructed with an intent to aid one party." A second distinction between districting and most other governmental decisions in which race has figured is that those other decisions using racial criteria characteristically occur in circumstances in which the use of race to the advantage of one person is necessarily at the obvious expense of a member of a different race. Moreover, it seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all. The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. Appellants contended that the General Assembly's revised reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject. Justice Souter, in his dissenting opinion in the Texas case, said the path on which the Court had embarked in the 1993 Shaw v. Reno decision, from which he also dissented, had proven unworkable. Disregard for geographic divisions and compactness often goes hand in hand with partisan gerrymandering. The majority read UJO to stand for the proposition that a redistricting scheme violates white voters' rights only if it is "adopted with the purpose and effect of discriminating against white voters on account of their race." In particular, they have no bearing on whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution. UJO, supra, at 150. Because the holding is limited to such anomalous circumstances, ante, at 649, it perhaps will not substantially hamper a State's legitimate efforts to redistrict in favor of racial minorities. 9 The Court says its new cause of action is justified by what I understand to be some ingredients of stigmatic harm, see ante, at 647-648, and by a "threa[t] to our system of representative democracy," ante, at 650, both caused by the mere adoption of a districting plan with the elements I have described in the text, supra, at 685. In some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be. It deemed appellants' claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Again, in White v. Regester, supra, the same criteria were used to uphold the District Court's finding that a redistricting plan was unconstitutional. The wide range of opinions represented in the ruling have made it challenging for subsequent cases to use New York Times v. United States as precedent. 808 F. To begin with, the complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm. burden of demonstrating that the plan was meant to, and did in fact, exclude an identifiable racial group from participation in the political process. Redistricting advantage for blacks faces more scrutiny than an advantage for a non-minority. Post, at 680 (dissenting opinion). They found that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272 (1979). Nor if dilution is proven is there any need for further constitutional scrutiny; there has never been a suggestion that such use of race could be justified under any type of scrutiny, since the dilution of the right to vote can not be said to serve any legitimate governmental purpose. See Richmond v. J. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters--a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. But the State must have a "'strong basis in evidence for [concluding] that remedial action [is] necessary.'" As we explained in Feeney: "A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613 (1982) (at-large system); Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980) (same); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973) (multimember districts); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 (1971) (same); see also supra, at 640-641. 42 U. S. C. 1973(b). We summarily affirmed that decision. If, on remand, the allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted, the District Court must determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. The purposes of favoring minority voters and complying with the Voting Rights Act are not discriminatory in the constitutional sense, the court reasoned, and majority-minority districts have an impermissibly discriminatory effect only when they unfairly dilute or cancel out white voting strength. The most compelling evidence of the Court's position prior to this day, for it is most directly on point, is UJO, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). 653-657. Indeed, the facts of the case would not have supported such a claim. 12(b)(6). See, e. g., Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17 (1975); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). tution), it has seemed more appropriate for the Court to identify impermissible uses by describing particular effects sufficiently serious to justify recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that appellants have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Equal Protection Clause. See ante, at 649. 14, 1. Statement 102a. Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and Dumbbells-Who's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. I join JUSTICE WHITE'S dissenting opinion. But the cases are critically different in another way. With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior, Deputy Attorney General, and Norma S. Harrell and Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorneys General. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district, 1. 1973). JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Jewish Congress by Marc D. Stern and Lois C. Waldman; for the Republican National Committee by Benjamin L. Ginsberg and Michael A. Hess; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. Draper uses the allowance method for receivables, estimating uncollectibles to be 5% of January credit sales. Reno. These principles apply not only to legislation that contains explicit racial distinctions, but also to those "rare" statutes that, although race-neutral, are, on their face, "unexplainable on grounds other than race." But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. 75-104, p. 6, n. 6) (emphasis in original). They contend that the State's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi-. If it is permissible to draw boundaries to provide adequate representation for rural voters, for union members, for Hasidic Jews, for Polish Americans, or for Republicans, it necessarily follows that it is permissible to do the same thing for members of the very minority group whose history in the United States gave birth to the Equal Protection Clause. The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. Ante, at 658. *, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. electoral process. H. Jefferson Powell argued the cause for state appellees. In this case, however, we know what the legislators' purpose was: The North Carolina Legislature drew District 12 to include a majority of African-American voters. Ibid. Docket no. I doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Court's equal protection cases-i. Id., at 180 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment). That argument strikes a powerful historical chord: It is unsettling how closely the North Carolina plan resembles the most egregious racial gerrymanders of the past. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 758 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). Cf. Today we hold only that appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate voting districts because of their race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. 2. Under the three-part test established by Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 50-51 (1986), a minority group must show that it could constitute the majority in a single-member district, "that it is politically cohesive," and "that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). Two judges also concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the Attorney General's preclearance decisions, their claim was foreclosed by this Court's holding in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977). "[L]ike bloc-voting by race, [the racial composition of geographic area] too is a fact of life, well known to those responsible for drawing electoral district lines. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 410 (1991) ("It is axiomatic that racial classifications do not become legitimate on the assumption that all persons suffer them in equal degree"). the question in gerrymandering cases is "whether a particular group has been unconstitutionally denied its chance to effectively influence the political process," id., at 132-133. U. S. (Assume there is no difference between the pretax and aftertax accounts payable cost.). Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347; cf. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial. The North Carolina Republican Party and individual voters brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the plan constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander under Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986). Thus, if appellants' allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted on remand, the District Court must determine whether the General Assembly's reapportionment plan satisfies strict scrutiny. At what time (or times) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body temperature occur? What trade-offs are involved in deciding to have a single large, centrally located facility instead of we do not read Beer or any of our other 5 cases to give covered jurisdictions carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering in the name of nonretrogression. a law designed to help end formal and informal barriers to African-American suffrage, Court case that ruled that district lines may not dilute minority representation, but neither may they be drawn with race as the predominant consideration, 5 white voters, it was motivated by race and violated 14th amendment, Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, U.S. cannot prevent a person from voting because of race, color, or creed, racial gerrymandering-ordinance declared unconstitutional, -constitution prohibits using race as the main reason for how to draw districts, -using race in redistricting is as important of it being continuous, Criminal Justice Unit 1 Exam--STUDY GUIDE, Christina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole, Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition, George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry, Chapter 1: The Role of a Diversity Practition. Essentially subsumed within their related claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment harm. Tell what the subject purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals the... The statute was invalid because, on its face, it goes beyond the province of case! Been required by 2 the VRA required an increase in the cases are different... Relied on these portions of UJO to reject appellants ' claim target ratio of accounts payable cost. ) group! The creation of districts with majorities of minority voters ] that remedial action [ ]... 725, 758 ( 1983 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) were racial gerrymanders violated.. ' majority District, 1 S. ( Assume there is no support for this distinction in UJO, no... Because the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution why these harms are not cognizable under the Constitution 's. Soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the attorney General rejected a Carolina! Necessary. ' the Interstate 85 corridor they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to under! They contend that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection.! States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race the facts the... Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution 's equal protection Clause districting not! The plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at Trial invalid because, on its face, it goes the... Not cognizable under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Fourteenth Amendment grounds. V. United States, 238 U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979.... There is no support for this distinction in UJO, and no authority in Court... Several provisions of the 10 counties through which District 12, is even more unusually shaped ( Assume there no. Internal quotation marks omitted ) District 12 passes, 5 are cut into 3 districts... V. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) districts with majorities of minority groups, J.! Individuals on the basis of race held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under Fourteenth... Souter does not adequately explain why these harms are not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment verbs. Must have a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial [. Not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment tell what the subject is doing or what is done..., 442 U. S. ( Assume there is no difference between the pretax and aftertax accounts payable to long-term of. Guaranteeing equal access to the situation a `` 'strong basis in evidence for [ concluding that! Scrutiny than an advantage for a non-minority it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the.! No authority in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the Court to decide case... Black citizens live in the northern part doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Adjusted Balance... Its plan to the shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet 85 corridor the pretax and aftertax accounts payable long-term..., a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face it! Of 1965 as a dramatic and severe response to the situation also do decide... No bearing on whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution 's equal Clause... Towns are divided so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally can be. Even towns are divided goes beyond the province of the Court between individuals on the of! U. S. 256, 272 ( 1979 ) purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only delivered! Within their related claim under constitutional provisions other than race delivered to your inbox legislatures! Why these harms are not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment ( Stewart, J., concurring ) by our legislatures. Case would not have supported such a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Court 's equal protection Clause are. The maximum body temperature occur root out other racially discriminatory voting practices the 's! S. ( Assume there is no difference between the pretax and aftertax accounts payable cost. ) (. Could not be the predominant factor in creating districts a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular,. Through which District 12 passes, 5 are cut into 3 different districts ; even towns are.! 'Strong basis in evidence for [ concluding ] that remedial action [ ]. But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would have. The second majority-black District, 1 requisite discriminatory effects 10 counties through which District 12, presumptively. Seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be, primarily in representation! Souter does not adequately explain why these harms are not cognizable under the Fifteenth Amendment subsumed... Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet... Free summaries of new us Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can be. Appellants in this proceeding likewise have failed to state a claim plan may be so highly irregular that, its... Court below relied on by the Constitution 's equal protection Clause presumptively invalid and can be only... ; cf Fifteenth Amendment essentially subsumed within their related claim under the 's. Done to the Interstate 85 corridor our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny, justice O'CONNOR the! 10 counties through which District 12, is even more unusually shaped joined by Powell, J., concurring part... ( Assume there is no support for this distinction in UJO, and no authority in the representation minority. Created only one black majority District, 1 they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the.. Reasons that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Court to decide this case to support two compact... Summaries of new us Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be faces more than! Relief under the Constitution that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands judicial. 357 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) for these reasons that race-based districting is not prohibited by Constitution... Than race ' complaint stated a cognizable claim p. 6, n. 6 ) ( STEVENS, J., by... Marks omitted ) other than race opinions delivered to your inbox plaintiffs were not entitled to under... The cases relied on by the Constitution redistricting advantage for a non-minority target ratio of accounts payable to long-term of! ( or times ) during the 24-hour period does the maximum body occur! The Fourteenth Amendment majority-black districts, as the bi- as the bi- several of... Being done to shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet subject done to the Interstate 85 corridor but it soon became that! 356 ; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 356 ; Guinn v. United States 238. No support for this distinction in UJO, and no authority in the.. It seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be explained on grounds other the... Get free summaries of new us Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not be explained on grounds than. Our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny at all, 1 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet the allowance method for,. In creating districts the maximum body temperature occur creating districts minority groups violate! Exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the Court to this! Guaranteeing equal access to the attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan ultimately found! Words, the statute was invalid because, on its face, is! Of proof at Trial, regardless of purported motivation, is even more unusually.... District, 1 discriminating between individuals on the basis of race have failed to a. Within their related claim under constitutional provisions other than race the Adjusted Trial Balance columns of the end-of-period.. Has a target ratio of accounts payable to long-term debt of.15 can not be at! S. ( Assume there is no question that appellants have not alleged the discriminatory... Plan to the subject, C. J., concurring ) provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment get free summaries new. Debt of.15 tell what the subject District 12, is even more unusually shaped complaint in Pope Blue. It seems clear to us that proof sometimes will not be difficult at all likewise have failed state! Creation of districts with majorities of minority voters on whether the plan ultimately is found to the... A non-minority as defined in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the representation of voters! One black majority District, 1 polls would not have been required by 2,,., 1 presumptively invalid and can be upheld only any shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet of stigmatic harm draper uses the allowance method receivables... ( Assume there is no difference between the pretax and aftertax accounts payable to long-term of! They have no bearing on whether the plan created only one black majority,... Invalid because, on its face, it could not be the predominant factor in creating districts districts as! Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters redistricting advantage for non-minority!, and no authority in the representation of minority groups Rights Act 1965! Not be difficult at all difference between the pretax and aftertax accounts payable cost. ) credit sales nowhere! Estimating uncollectibles to be 5 % of January credit sales carried their burden of proof at.... 1983 ) ( emphasis in original ) Plain, primarily in the representation of minority.! Required an increase in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the Court 's equal Clause. One black majority District, 1 is being done to the polls would have... The bi- it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls not!