1

Michal Chmielniak PS 300 Assignment 3 Outline I. Black Enfranchisement I. Historical Background. i. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ii. Prohibited denying the right to vote based upon the male citizens race, color, or condition of previous servitude. III. Historical Evidence of Black Enfranchisement i. After the Civil War within four former Confederate states the African-American population was the majority Fearing the African-American political domination Southern Whites imposed voting barriers and practiced intimidation and violence From approximately 1890 to 1908 Southern States redrafted State Constitutions to include restricted voter registration and suffrage o Of these the generally renowned incorporated: Poll Taxes, Residency, & Literacy Tests II. Cases Involving Black Enfranchisement I. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, US, 1960, 364 i. Facts: Negro citizens sued in the Federal District Court in Alabama for a declaratory judgment that an Act of the State Legislature altering the boundaries for Tuskegee is unconstitutional and for the enforcement of an injunction under the Fifteenth Amendment. The border alteration removed an immense portion of the African-Americans population from Tuskegee. ii. Issue: In redistricting Tuskegees electoral district did the Alabama legislature violate the Fifteenth Amendment preventing citizens to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude? iii. Rationale/Holding: The Court has never acknowledged that the States have power to do as they will with municipal corporations regardless of consequences. Legislative control of municipalities, no less than other state power, lies within the scope of relevant limitations imposed by the United States Constitution. Under the Fifteenth Amendment, if state legislature provides such legislation, which deprives the plaintiff pre-existing municipal votes on the basis of race, the State power in the state interest cannot be achieved in such a manner to circumvent the Fifteenth Amendment. Thus the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. iv. Court Principle: States are insulated from judicial review when States exercise wholly within the domain of state interest, the only detriment if there is no countervailing municipal function the legislature serves. II. Reynolds v. Sims, US, 1964, 533 i. Facts: Plaintiffs charged that malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature deprived voters in several counties under the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) and the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint alleged that legislature based upon the 1900 census had not be been reapportioned decennially (districts had not been redrawn in approximately sixty years), and denied proportionate voting rights. ii. Issue: Does an abridgement within the State House Legislation violate federal rights under the Constitution? iii. Rationale/Holding: Under the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote is an inalienable right for full and effective participation in the political process of his States legislative bodies. The dilution of voting, or differing the weight of an individuals vote is unjustifiable. EPC and Fifteenth Amendment provide the

opportunity for equal participation within the government. Thus the requirement that both house and state legislature are proportioned on the population basis through the census. iv. Court Principle: The conception of political equality can only mean one thing one person one vote The right of suffrage can not be deviated by history alone, or economic or various group interests reside as passable means in attempting to justify disparity within reapportionment. States can rationally consider factors other than population in apportioning legislative representation, but apportionment must be based upon population and the equal-population principle should not be diluted as much as practical. The Court provides instances where deviation is justifiable: compact districts, community of interests, contiguous territory II. The Reapportionment Revolution I. Historical Background i. Within 1920, Congress passed legislation requiring itself to reapportion every census cycle, however in redistricting some States redistricted in pro-partisan mannerisms (gerrymandering) or some States kept in place old district lines regardless of the altering demographic. The census provides information on demographic of each district, which allowed legislators to create partisan districts or minority districts. ii. Representatives draw the districts line and they remain in that manner for the concurrent ten years. II. Cases Involving Reapportionment I. Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado, US, 1964, 713 i. Facts: Plaintiffs sued Colorado on the basis that their unalienable rights to equality in suffrage had been compromised. Under the apportionment plan, the State House was apportioned on the basis of the population, while the Senate was composed of a combination of population and various other demographics. ii. Issue: In reapportionment is the EPC in the Fourteenth Amendment violated if districts are represented with influences varying from population? iii. Rationale/Holding: Individual constitutional suffrage may not be deprived upon the basis of majority approval. The reapportionment scheme failed to meet requirements of the EPC as the Colorado Senate diluted a portion of the populations votes. iv. Court Principle: The apportionment of the Colorado Senate diluted votes and although a majority approved said scheme it may not be permitted to offset minor underrepresentation of a faction. II. Karcher v. Daggett, US, 1983, 1303 i. Facts: The New Jersey statue for reapportionment, which produced new electoral districts based upon the 1980 census, also in effect producing districts with proDemocratic political power. Plaintiffs argued that the plan violated Article One Section Two of the Constitution. ii. Issue: Does reapportionment gerrymandering violate article one section two? iii. Rationale/Holding: Article One Section Two Requires absolute equality, and only under the circumstance where deviation occurs it will be allowed if the State can provide sufficient evidence in legitimate state objectives incorporating: contiguous and compact districts; municipal boundaries; electing incumbents. iv. Court Principle: Deviation within State reapportioned districts can be justified under the Courts set principles in contiguous and compact districts; municipal boundaries; electing incumbents. III. Davis v. Bandemer, US, 1986, 109


i. ii. iii.

3
Facts: Plaintiff challenged that Indianas 1981 reapportionment was unconstitutional upon the basis it diluted Democrats vote within the state thus violating EPC. Issue: Is political gerrymandering justifiable under EPC in terms of state legislative redistricting? Rationale/Holding: Political gerrymander is justiciable. The Court holds constitution discrimination occurs in the manner when the electoral system is provided which deters or dilutes a voter or groups influence upon the political process as a whole. And as the plaintiff is maintains influence as the Democratic Party the reapportionment is not sufficiently adverse to violate the EPC. Court Principle: Plaintiffs are required to provide both intentional discrimination and actual discriminatory affect. The Court does not deem proportional representation a requirement. The Court holds constitution discrimination occurs in the manner when the electoral system is provided which deters or dilutes a voter or groups influence upon the political process as a whole. Court must view proof of consistent degradation. Badham v. Eu, 1989, 694 Plaintiff, California Republicans, contend that reapportionment is intentional and effective gerrymandering that violates the EPC by diluting Republican voters strength. California was entitle to forty-three congressional seats following the 1980 census Issue: Is political gerrymandering justifiable under EPC in terms of congressional redistricting? Rationale/Holding: As the Republican Party of California the party maintained influence this solidifying the previous claim within Davis v. Bandemer. The plaintiff did not "provide both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group. As the Republican Party maintained an influence in their term that electoral power by a group is not unconstitutionally diminished by the simple fact of an apportionment scheme that provides elections more difficult. Court Principle: The court provided an Effect Test to prove violation of EPC by gerrymandering and the case must pass all tests in which the prongs of the test are to display a lack of political power (which must seemingly be done by elimination of suffrage). Vieth v. Jubelirer, US, 2004, 1769 Facts: The General Assembly of Pennsylvania passed a reapportionment scheme after a loss of two seats within the House of Representatives. The plaintiffs alleged that the plan violated the one-person one vote requirement of Article One Section 2. Issue: Does political gerrymandering violate Article One Section Two of the Constitution? Rationale/Holding: The court in Bandemer v. Davis provided no standard for how one should reapportion districts, without such standards (other than Effect Test) Court concluded gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable and that Bandemer v. Davis was shoddily resolved. The focus of the rationale within the case was that the defendant must provide intent that satisfies the importance of the goal of the redistricting incorporating: continuity and compactness of districts; political subdivision; protection of incumbents; compliance of voting rights; communities of interest; same socio-economic level; and cohesion of minorities. The Court claimed that to provide a decision upon gerrymandering

iv.

IV. i.

ii. iii.

iv.

V. i.

ii. iii.

cases that the disadvantaged by the reapportionment will sue to draw out the elections regardless of right to vote. a. The concurring opinion by Kennedy only concurs in judgment although does not wish to prevent future gerrymandering cases if some limited or precise rationale was found to establish violation of the Constitution in redistricting cases. b. Stevens dissents and provides an c. Sutter provides a five-step plan to resolve gerrymandering. iv. Court Principle: The judgment of the court upon the case does not make all gerrymandering claims non-justiciable, as Bandemer v. Davis was not overruled as no majority opinion in the case was determined. Court provided opening in gerrymandering cases and a list of potential goals to avoid redistricting cases involving; continuity and compactness of districts; political subdivision; protection of incumbents; compliance of voting rights; communities of interest; same socio-economic level; and cohesion of minorities. III. Preclearance and the Voting Rights Act I. Historical Background i. Elucidate terms for racial discrimination cases within voting and reapportionment. ii. Extensive federal oversight involving suffrage. Part of the Act had provisions for preclearance involving the Justice Department allowing cover jurisdiction to rid racial discrimination. iii. Voting Rights Act of 1965 Provisions Section Two general prohibition of voting discrimination o Proof of intentional discrimination is not required Section Five Requires Departments of Justice through a procedure to preclear any attempt to alter voting qualification or perquisites to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting. II. Cases Involving Preclearance and the Voting Rights Act I. Allen v. State Board of Elections, 1969, 544 i. Facts: The plaintiffs, voters within Mississippi and Virginia, claimed that certain amendments within the States electoral legislature and procedure necessitated preclearance under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. ii. Issue: Do the statues brought forth involve voting qualification or perquisites to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting? iii. Rationale/Holding: The Court held that Section Five necessitated the preclearance of the voting legislature and practice as the Voting Rights Act aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race. iv. Court Principle: Court allowed for broad interpretation of Section Five that all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to Section Five scrutiny. Court principle in what determines preclearance: altering composition of electorate, method of voting (removing elected office), altering requirements and qualifications, manner of voting. II. Presley v. Etowah County Commission, 1992, 491 i. Facts: Alabama County Commissions members passed Common Fund Resolution combining all of the commissions funds into singular budget and eliminating commissioners power of distribution. The plaintiff Commissioner Presley charged that the removal of power fell under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act as the rule occurred under the Presley becoming the first black commissioner.

ii. iii.

iv.

III. i.

ii. iii. iv.

IV. i.

ii. iii. iv.

V. i.

ii.

Does altering scope of commissioner authority constitute as a violation of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act? Rationale/Holding: The Court held that the case did not fall under the scope of Section Five, as it did not pertain to the Voting Rights Act. As the Court claimed the Act merely relates to methods of voting. Section Five does not fall under as the Alabama County Commissions only alters the distribution of power. Court Principle: Court provided loophole for discriminatory action. Allowed for government to alter office responsibilities of newly elected office-holders. The case provided an idea in which preclearance is necessary: altering at will, history of discrimination, and extra provisions. Beer v. United States, US, 1976, 130 Facts: The New Orleans charter provided for a multi-member and single-member voting practices for the council created a reapportionment plan where AfricanAmerican would hold two majorities and one at large majority in districts. The District Court and Attorney General objected to the multimember district and denied the apportionment scheme. Issue: Does the multi-membered election violate Section Five? Rationale/Holding: The Court held that Section Five can only be applied in voting procedures, and as the previous multi-member elections previously existed review under Section Five was not necessitated. Court Principle: Introduced retrogression in which districts with population of minorities increase thus allowing for positive and should be accepted by the District and Attorney General. Retrogression standard was produced that if minorities are made inferior due to the resulting changes in election practices, the change is unlawful under the Voting Rights Act. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, US, 1997, 471 Facts: The Bossier Parrish School Board, a policy jury maintained four year terms and had no African-American majority districts. The Attorney General grants clearance on a the counties plan for redistricting, yet when the School Board brings forth the identical plan the Attorney General denies preclearance. In an attempt to force the School Board to utilize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) plan for redistricting which provided more black majority districts. Issue: If retrogression is not occurring can the Attorney General deny preclearance due to a hypothetical plan, which provides more minority districts? Rationale/Holding: The Court held that since retrogression does not occur that a plan with a discriminatory but non-retrogressive purpose should be precleared. As Section five affirms nothing but the absence of backsliding. Court Principle: The Court deemed that the language of Section Five allows for dilution or ill effects on minority voting power as long as retrogression does not occur. Section Five does not prohibit preclearance of a reapportionment scheme as long as retrogression does not occur. Thornburg v. Gingles, US, 1986, 478 On April 1982, North Carolina General Assembly passed redistricting plan for Senate and House of Representatives. The plaintiff, African-American citizens of North Carolina, claimed seven districts which utilized multimember instead of single member districts dilute the voting influence of blacks thus violating Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Issue: Does the North Carolina redistricting plan unlawfully discriminate against blacks?


iii.

6
Rationale/Holding: Court has nine factors, which provide proof of discrimination, and none of them have to occur to fall under Section Two. The nine-point test includes: historical discrimination, socio-economic disadvantages among others. The Court decided to consider the totality of circumstance to determine if discrimination occurs, which includes minority voters who contend that the multimember district violates Section Two must prove, as a precondition, that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in single-member district, that the minority is politically cohesive, and that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it usually to defeat the minoritys preferred candidate. The Court claimed the totality of the circumstances (polarized voting and socioeconomic discrimination) along with multi-member districts impaired the ability of black voters to participate equally in the political process and elect candidates of their choice thus violating Section Two. In a concurrence Justice Thomas attempted to proclaim where single membered districts were where the Courts decisions were leading yet he proclaimed the removal of all safeguards for minorities was the only manner to introduce equality. Court Principle: The Court utilized the three prong test to provide proof of discrimination in a precondition, that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in single-member district, that the minority is politically cohesive, and that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it usually to defeat the minoritys preferred candidate. Holder v. Hall, US, 1994, 874 Facts: Within Bleckley, Georgia the county government maintained single commissioner who held all legislative and executive authority, but adopted a scheme in which five members would be elected from single member districts and one would be elected at large. The plaintiff, NCAAP and black citizens, filed suit claiming the single membered districts were created to exclude their influence upon government thus violating Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Issue: Does the magnitude of the government fall under the scope of Section Two? Rationale/Holding: The Court claimed the size of the governing body is not subject to Section Two. The Court also found no benchmark for a precondition, that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in single-member district, that the minority is politically cohesive, and that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it usually to defeat the minoritys preferred candidate. Court Principle: The Court had no benchmark for the magnitude of a governmental body to fall under Section Two due to it is not a standard, practice, or procedure. UJO v. Carey, US, 1977, 144 Facts: The redistricting plan of 1974 for Kings County, New York diluted the vote of the Hasidic Jew. The plaintiffs claimed the redistricting plan split the Hasidic Jew vote and violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Issue: Are the Hassidic Jews considered a minority to claim violation under the Section Two? Rationale/Holding: The Court deemed that Hassidic Jews voting strength has not been diluted even though they fell under the category for politically cohesive and geographically compact and contiguous, although the districts the plan was contained a sixty-five percentage white majority thus not diluting the vote.

iv.

VI. i.

ii. iii.

iv. VII. i. ii. iii.


iv. VIII. i.

7
Court Principle: The court did not deem the Hassidic Jew as a majority rather than part of the white majority thus could not claim Section Two. Shaw v. Reno, US, 1993, 511 Facts: North Carolinas 1990 reapportionment scheme contained a black majority district (the African-American population was twenty percent). The Attorney General denied the scheme claiming another district could be created. The plaintiffs contend that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face is unexplainable on grounds other than race, and requires close scrutiny. Issue: Does the reapportionment of districts for race violate the Fourteenth Amendment EPC? Rationale/Holding: The Court claimed a reapportionment plan might be so highly bizarre on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race. Occurs when a State concentrates a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. Reapportionment is an area in which appearances do matter. A reapportionment plan that includes individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries may not share similar political interest. Court Principle: If an apportionment area is so bizarre on its face it is unexplainable on grounds other than race, and requires close scrutiny. Bush v. Vera, US, 1996, 952 Use of program which only contained racial and political date to reapportion Texas district was deemed unconstitutional Court claimed to just view shape to determine if did not meet reapportionment standards Miller v. Johnson, US, 1995, 900 Facts: In the 1980s Georgia maintained a singularly black majority district, and during the 1990 reapportionment allowed for an eleventh congressional seat although in creating the eleventh districts for a black majority the committee created a geographic monstrosity to create a max-black plan. Issue: Is racial reapportionment for congressional redistricting a violation of EPC? Rationale/Holding: The Court claimed the reapportionment plan was highly irregular and bizarre it shape it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race. Thus evoked strict scrutiny. Court Principle: The Court determined that if a area is so bizarre it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race strict scrutiny is involved and the Justice Department should have allowed previous reapportionment plans to pass. IN redistricting race can not be the predominate factor. Easely v. Cromartie, US, 2001, 234 Facts: North Carolina reapportioned districts whereas the 12th district and others were drawn pre-dominantly African-American. The plaintiff, North Carolina Republicans, drew claim that the district were created for partisan reasons and thus violated the EPC of the Fourteenth Amendment. Issue: Does factoring racial demographics violate EPC? Rationale/Holding: In the instance where race and politics are highly coordinated the Court will review the Distract Courts decision. The appearance was race neutral on its face nonetheless is an effort to separate based upon race. Given the un- disputed evidence that racial identification is highly correlated with

ii. iii.

iv. IX. i. ii. X. i.

ii. iii. iv.

XI. i.

ii. iii.

8
political affiliation in North Carolina, these facts in and of themselves cannot, as a matter of law, support the District Courts judgment Court Principle: The Court considered the minorities were demographically a coincidence that the redrawing was achieved in a political partisan fashion, which is not unconstitutional. Georgia v. Ashcroft, US, 2003, 182 Facts: Georgias 1997 State Senatorial redistricting plan created fifty-sex districts with eleven o f total black population over fifty percent and other the new 2000 census the black majority population districts grew to thirteen. After the Census Georgia reapportioned the districts The United States argued the plan should not be precleared due to decreased black rights to elect the candidate of their choice in three districts. Issue: Does decreasing the district ability to elect certain candidates violate Section Five if retrogression had not occurred? Rationale/Holding: The Court surmised that the District Court focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts, rather than the increased black majority district throughout the State. Court Principle: That a plan should be precleared under Section Five if it would Satisfy Section of the Voting Rights Act is rejected and to determine a retrogression in the e position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise is only violated if the State can not show that the black majority gains in the redistricting offset the loss in a particular district.

iv. XII. i.

ii. iii.

iv.