A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday said a lower court must take another look at whether Alabama’s Republican-led legislature relied too heavily on race when it redrew the state’s voting districts in a way that black leaders say limited minority voting power.
The justices split 5-4 across ideological lines in ruling that a three-judge panel did not properly consider complaints that state officials illegally packed black voters into too few voting districts.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the lower court should have reviewed claims of racial gerrymandering on a district-by-district level, not just statewide. He also said the court didn’t apply the right test when it found that race wasn’t the primary motivating factor.
Breyer said both the district court and the state legislature relied too much on a “mechanically numerical” view of whether the new plan reduced minority voting strength. Instead of asking how it could maintain the minority percentages in districts, the court should have asked what percentages the minority should have to elect their candidate of choice.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The News & Observer
“Asking the wrong question may well have led to the wrong answer,” Breyer said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, joined the court’s four liberals in the majority, including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
North Carolina attorneys and voting rights advocates who have challenged the new legislative and congressional districts approved by the N.C. General Assembly in 2011 have been watching the Alabama case with great interest.
Anita Earls, executive director for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said she and other challengers of the North Carolina maps think they have a stronger case, in many ways, than the Alabama case.
“The decision in the Alabama case makes clear that the Voting Rights Act does not require, and the Constitution does not permit, the use of mechanical racial targets in redistricting, as was done in North Carolina,” Earls said.
Though Earls and other challengers contend the North Carolina maps drawn after the U.S. Census in 2010 were gerrymanders designed to weaken the voting power of African-American and Latino voters, the districts have been upheld by a three-judge panel and the N.C. Supreme Court. Challengers of the districts submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking to be heard on the case. Attorneys for the North Carolina lawmakers submitted a filing last week arguing against the appeal.
“The Alabama and North Carolina redistricting cases involve different questions of law, and legislative leaders do not believe today’s Supreme Court decision impacts the North Carolina case,” Phil Berger, N.C. Senate president pro tempore, and Tim Moore, the N.C. House speaker, said in a joint statement.
The U.S. justices are set to consider in mid-April whether to hold a hearing on the North Carolina case.
In Alabama, state officials say they had no choice but to concentrate black voters in some districts, making neighboring seats more white and apt to elect Republicans.
African-Americans challenging the state’s Republican-drawn maps said black voters should have been somewhat dispersed to increase their influence in elections.
A panel of three federal judges had ruled 2-1 in 2013 that the new districts were not discriminatory and did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.
Like other states, the Alabama Legislature had to redraw political boundaries to reflect population shifts in the 2010 Census. The process can often lead to gerrymandering – the manipulation of district boundaries to gain a partisan advantage.
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said he was disappointed in the ruling but noted that the current plan would stay in effect while the case continues.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court’s majority “issues a sweeping holding that will have profound implications for the constitutional ideal of one person, one vote, for the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and for the primacy of the state in managing its own elections.”
Scalia said the challengers never really proved or even made formal arguments about district-specific claims of racial gerrymandering. He complained that majority was allowing the challengers “to take a mulligan,” or have a second chance, despite their pursuit of a “flawed litigation strategy.”
Scalia’s dissent was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Thomas, the court’s only black justice, also issued a separate dissent.
“I do not pretend that Alabama is blameless when it comes to its sordid history of racial politics,” Thomas said. “But, today the state is not the one that is culpable. Its redistricting effort was indeed tainted, but it was tainted by our voting rights jurisprudence and the uses to which the Voting Rights Act has been put.”
Thomas added: “Long ago, the DOJ and special-interest groups like the ACLU hijacked the act, and they have been using it ever since to achieve their vision of maximized black electoral strength, often at the expense of the voters they purport to help,” referring to the Department of Justice, which enforces the Voting Rights Act, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Alabama Rep. Darrio Melton, a Democrat from Selma, called the Supreme Court’s decision “a step in the right direction” but said he won’t be satisfied unless the courts eventually order new district lines.
Before the new lines were drawn, Melton said, black voters who lived in majority white districts could influence who was picked to serve in the Alabama Legislature.
“To take that away is basically to dilute their voices,” Melton said.
Sen. Del Marsh, the Republican leader of the Alabama Senate, said he did not fear an additional court review. He noted the Justice Department approved the plan in 2012 when Alabama was under a preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.
“I am confident that the plan is legal, fair and will once again be affirmed by the court,” Marsh said.
Associated Press writer Kim Chandler and News & Observer staff writer Anne Blythe contributed to this report.