Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

North Carolina's district maps struck down by Supreme Court for 'racial gerrymandering'

North Carolina has long faced allegations of black voter suppression

Andrew Buncombe
New York
Monday 22 May 2017 10:27 EDT
Comments
The court said the districting efforts weakened black voting strength elsewhere in the state
The court said the districting efforts weakened black voting strength elsewhere in the state (AP)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Supreme Court has ruled that officials in North Carolina “racially gerrymandered” congressional voting districts.

The court struck down two districts that were created in 2011 when Republicans controlled the state legislature and governor’s office, saying that race had played too large a role in their creation.

The court said gerrymandering placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken black voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

The Associated Press said that both districts have since been redrawn, and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016. Even with the new districts, Republicans maintained their 10-3 edge in congressional seats.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the state did not offer compelling justifications to justify its reliance on race in either district.

The issue of race and redistricting one is a familiar one at the Supreme Court and Ms Kagan noted that one of the districts was “making its fifth appearance before this court”.

States have to take race into account when drawing maps for legislative, congressional and a host of municipal political districts. At the same time, race cannot be the predominant factor without very strong reasons, under a line of high court cases stretching back 20 years.

A three-judge federal court had previously struck down the two districts. The justices upheld the lower court ruling on both counts.

The court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling on District 1 in northeastern North Carolina. Ms Kagan wrote that the court will not “approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence”.

The justices split 5-3 on the other district, District 12 in the southwestern part of the state. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to form a majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not part in the case.

The state insisted that race played no role at all in the creation of one district. Instead, the state argued that Republicans who controlled the redistricting process wanted to leave the district in Democratic hands, so that the surrounding districts would be safer for Republicans.

“The evidence offered at trial...adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration,” Ms Kagan wrote.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in