Case Summary

After North Carolina enacted a new congressional plan in 1992, several North Carolina voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the new 12th Congressional District as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.

  • The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that racial considerations predominated when drawing the 12th District. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the grounds a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the evidence was “consistent” with an unconstitutional race-based objective or an otherwise constitutional, partisan objective to draw a “safe” Democratic seat.
  • On remand, the district court again held the 12th District was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, citing four findings specifically: the district’s shape; its splitting of towns and counties; its high population of Black voters; and the General Assembly’s “collection” of precincts with a high racial – rather than political – identification. Defendants again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On April 18, 2001, SCOTUS reversed again and upheld the District, finding the lower court’s conclusion that “race, not politics” drove District 12’s line drawing decisions to be “clearly erroneous.” The Court explained that the evidence in the record that tended to support the district court’s decision, when taken together, didn’t establish that race was the primary factor when drawing the boundaries because, in this case, race was correlated so closely with political affiliation. It went on to state that where majority-minority districts are at issue and race is highly correlated with political affiliation, a plaintiff must show, at least, that the legislature could’ve achieved its political objectives in alternative ways that are consistent with traditional districting principles, and that those alternatives would’ve also brought about significantly greater racial balance.

Significance: In a racial gerrymandering case where political affiliation is shown to track closely with racial identification, a plaintiff is required to show, at minimum, that the state could have achieved its legitimate redistricting policy goals through alternative means that better adhered to traditional districting principles while also promoting a greater degree of racial balance.

Case Library

U.S. Supreme Court - Nos. 99-1864, 99-1865 [532 U.S. 234 (2001)] [formerly Hunt v. Cromartie]