Cooper v. Harris

Brief Fact Summary.

After the 2010 Census, the North Carolina state legislature appointed House and Senate Committees to prepare a redistricting plan for U.S. House of Representatives districts. Two districts were re-drawn to have a “Black Voting Age Population” (BVAP) over 50%. This resulted in the creation of two more majority-black districts than there were under the previous congressional districting plan. Two U.S. citizens registered to vote in the two districts at issue sued, arguing that it was an attempt to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A state’s interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act does not justify using race as a predominant factor in drawing congressional district lines.

Facts.

After the 2010 Census, the North Carolina state legislature appointed House and Senate Committees to prepare a redistricting plan for U.S. House of Representatives districts. The heads of the committees publicly stated that according to the requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, districts must be constructed to have a “Black Voting Age Population” (BVAP) of 50% plus one. To comply with this criterion, two districts were re-drawn to have a BVAP over 50%. This resulted in the creation of two more majority-black districts than there were under the previous congressional districting plan.

Two U.S. citizens registered to vote in the two districts at issue. They sued and argued that the Voting Rights Act’s requirements was merely a pretext to place more black voters in the two new majority-black districts, in order to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts.

Issue.

Does North Carolina’s new districting plan constitute a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

Held.

Yes, North Carolina’s new districting plan constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Dissent.

Justice Alito

The district court’s finding that race predominated in the drawing of one of the districts is clearly erroneous. The state offered strong evidence that politics, not race, was the legislature’s predominant aim, and the evidence supporting the district court’s contrary finding is weak.

Concurrence.

Justice Thomas

This case presents a welcome course correction to this Court’s previously insufficiently deferential application of the clear-error standard.

Discussion.

The district court had sufficient evidence to find that race was the predominant rationale for the redistricting at issue here. Moreover, the state did not meet its burden of proving that it had a compelling interest to separate voters based on race through narrowly tailored means. Although complying with the Voting Rights Act might serve as a compelling reason, the state must demonstrate that it had good cause to think that it would transgress the requirements of the Voting Rights Act if it did not draw race-based district boundaries.

For instance, for one of the districts, the black population had previously been less than a majority of its voters, yet blacks’ preferred candidates scored consistent victories. Thus, the state’s argument that the black population of the districts was increased in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act does not withstand strict scrutiny.