ACLU NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE Voting Rights and the Supre

ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU
 NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE 

              Voting Rights and the Supreme Court:
Statement of Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE       
September 27, 1994           

	WASHINGTON -- The most controversial and far-reaching voting
rights issues to come before the Supreme Court during the 1994 Term will
likely involve congressional redistricting and the meaning of Shaw v.
Reno. 

	In Shaw, a 1993 decision involving congressional redistricting in
North Carolina, the Court recognized for the first time a constitutional
cause of action where a district is "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." According to the Court, a district found
to be "irrational" or "bizarre" would be subject to strict constitutional
scrutiny, and could only be retained if the state showed that the district
promoted a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored. 

	Shaw-type challenges were subsequently filed against congressional
redistricting in Florida (Johnson v. Smith), Georgia (Johnson v. Miller),
Louisiana (Bays v. Louisiana), and Texas (Vera v. Richards). Thus far, the
district courts have upheld the plan in North Carolina and struck down
congressional districts in Georgia (the Eleventh, represented by Cynthia
McKinney), Louisiana (the Fourth, represented by Cleo Fields), and Texas
(the Eighteenth, represented by Craig Washington; the Twenty-ninth,
represented by Gene Green; and the Thirtieth, represented by Eddie Bernice
Johnson). The Florida case has not yet gone to trial. 

	Since these cases involve challenges to congressional
redistricting, they are required to be heard by three-judge district
courts, with appeals going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the
Georgia, Louisiana and Texas cases, various combinations of state
defendants, intervenors represented by civil rights organizations and the
United States have appealed. In the Louisiana case, the Court granted the
defendant's application for a stay, allowing congressional elections to go
forward under the challenged legislative plan. Following the action of the
Supreme Court, the district court in Texas stayed its own order. The
defendants in the Georgia case have also sought a stay from the Supreme
Court. 

	Although the facts surrounding redistricting -- such as district
shape -- and legal nuances are different in each case, essentially they
all involve the issues of: 

	* Whether Shaw should be narrowly construed to apply only to
districts that are truly bizarre (this was Justice Souter's view in his
dissent in Shaw, as well as that of Judge Edmondson who dissented in the
Georgia case). 

	* Whether any district, regardless of its shape, in which race was a
factor, or a "substantial" or "overriding" factor, is subject to strict
scrutiny (this was the view, with differences in emphasis, of the majority
in the Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas cases). 

	* The meaning of "narrow tailoring" (the court in Louisiana said it
meant eliminating the second majority black district). 

	If the Court agrees to hear one or more of the Shaw cases that are
now in the pipeline, and it is difficult to imagine that it would not, and
if it construes Shaw broadly to reach all race-conscious redistricting,
and if narrow tailoring means drawing districts that are majority white,
or are only marginally majority-minority, then the consequences would be
potentially disastrous for minority office holding. Of the 17 African
American members of Congress from the South, all were elected from
majority-minority districts. (See chart on page three.) The average
minority voting age population (including blacks and Hispanics) in these
districts is about 60 percent. 

	State legislatures and city and county governments that have
majority-minority districts would also be subject to challenge. Since
minorities have had success primarily majority-minority districts, an
expansive reading of Shaw could produce a kind of political ethnic
cleansing at all levels of office holding. 

	The concerns of the minority and civil rights communities over the
implications of Shaw are heightened by the anti-voting rights mood of some
of the Justices of the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice
Scalia, wrote in a concurring opinion in Holder v. Hall, which dismissed a
Voting Rights Act challenge to the sole commissioner form of government in
Bleckley County, Georgia, that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not
reach claims of vote dilution, but instead dealt only those of vote
denial. Since the gains in minority office holding since 1965 are directly
linked to successful vote dilution challenges (under the "result standard
of Section 2, and the "purpose or effect" standard of Section 5), adopting
Justice Thomas's view would be a greater setback for voting rights even
than an expansive reading of Shaw. Fortunately the rest of the court
(excepting Justice Scalia) rejected, or did not endorse, Justice Thomas's
view. In fact, Justice Stevens, in a dissenting opinion, called Justice
Thomas's analysis "radical" on no less than three occasions. 

         African American Members and Racial Composition
Of Southern U.S. Congressional Districts, 103rd Congress, First Session


				Voting Age Population
District	Black		Hispanic	Total		Minority Member

Alabama 7	63.5		0.3		63.8		Hilliard

Florida 3	50.6		2.7		53.3		Brown

Florida 17	54.0		24.1		78.1		Meek

Florida 23	45.7		9.1		54.8		Hastings

Georgia 2	52.3		1.6		53.9		Bishop

Georgia 5	57.5		1.8		59.3		Lewis

Georgia 11	60.4		1.0		61.4		McKinney

Louisiana 2	56.2		3.8		60.0		Jefferson

Louisiana 4	62.6		0.9		63.5		Fields

Mississippi 2	58.1		0.5		58.6		Thompson

No. Carolina 1	53.4		0.7		54.1		Clayton

No. Carolina 12	53.3		0.8		54.1		Watt

So. Carolina 6	58.3		0.5		58.8		Clyburn

Tennessee 9	54.1		0.7		54.8		Ford

Texas 18	48.6		13.7		62.3		Washington

Texas 30	47.1		15.1		62.3		Johnson

Virginia 3	61.2		1.2		62.4		Scott


Source: 1990 U.S. Census, Population and Housing Profile, Congressional
Districts of the 103rd Congress, C.Q. Weekly Report, V. 51, pp. 3473-3487. 

                            --endit--
=============================================================
ACLU Free Reading Room   | A publications and information resource of the  
gopher://aclu.org:6601   | American Civil Liberties Union National Office
ftp://aclu.org           | 
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org |  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"