WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down two North Carolina congressional districts on Monday, ruling that lawmakers had violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them, in a decision that could affect many voting maps, generally in the South.

The decision was handed down by an unusual coalition of justices, and was the latest in a series of setbacks for Republican-led legislatures. In recent cases concerning legislative maps in Alabama and Virginia, as well, the Supreme Court has insisted that packing black voters into a few districts — which dilutes their voting power — violates the Constitution.

Republicans in the North Carolina legislature denied that race was the predominant factor in redrawing the boundaries of the two districts under review. In one of them, though, they said, they had made some use of race.

The lawmakers said they had tried to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which in some settings requires that black voters be concentrated in numbers sufficient to provide them with an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. But critics of the voting map said the legislature was actually trying to diminish the number of districts in the state that could be won by Democrats.</s>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina Monday because race played too large a role in their creation, a decision voting rights advocates said would boost challenges in other states.

The justices ruled that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled for civil rights groups and black voters in challenges to political districts in Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia.

A Democratic group led by former Attorney General Eric Holder is focusing on redistricting challenges to counter political gains Republicans have made since the 2010 census and the redrawing of electoral districts that followed.

In North Carolina, 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.

A separate challenge has been filed to the redrawn districts, this time claiming that politics played too much of a role in their creation. The Supreme Court has never ruled that a partisan gerrymander violates the Constitution.

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 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 can't 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. 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 take 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," Kagan wrote.

Alito said in dissent that the evidence instead shows that the district's borders "are readily explained by political considerations."

Voting rights advocates said the ruling supports their arguments in yet another case pending before the Supreme Court that challenges North Carolina's state legislative districts. A federal court had previously thrown out 28 state House and Senate districts as illegal racial gerrymanders.

But earlier this year the Supreme Court temporarily halted an order to redraw those legislative districts. The justices could act on the challenge to the state districts as early as next week.

The lawyer leading the challenge to the state districts, Anita Earls of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said Monday's ruling has clear implications for that case.

"It's abundantly clear that what the state of North Carolina did in drawing its legislative districts cannot withstand constitutional muster," she said in a phone interview.

The court action comes at a time of intense political division in the state, highlighted by legal battles over moves by the GOP-controlled legislature to pass laws limiting some of the powers of North Carolina's new Democratic governor, Roy Cooper. Democrats have hoped that a redrawing of state districts could help them erode veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

Cooper issued a statement applauding Supreme Court for supporting "a level playing field and fair elections" for voters.

"The North Carolina Republican legislature tried to rig Congressional elections by drawing unconstitutional districts that discriminated against African Americans and that's wrong," Cooper said.

The Rev. William Barber, the president of the North Carolina NAACP who has sued separately over voting rights, said the high court's ruling shows that the General Assembly "engaged in systemic racism and cheated to win elections."

Holder said the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that he leads "will aggressively pursue new cases to end similar illegal racial gerrymandering in other states."

Associated Press writer Jonathan Drew contributed to this report from Raleigh, North Carolina.</s>The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the North Carolina General Assembly violated the constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing two congressional districts. The decision upholds a lower-court ruling that struck down maps drawn in 2011 by a Republican-led legislature.

Justices unanimously rejected the maps for District 1, which covers the northeastern part of the state, and split 5-3 in rejecting District 12, a long, skinny district that dips into Charlotte. Host Frank Stasio talks with Rusty Jacobs, WUNC politics reporter, about the ruling and its impact on North Carolina.</s>The Supreme Court has struck down two North Carolina congressional districts, saying that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing them.

"A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. "In this case, a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina officials violated that bar when they created two districts whose voting-age populations were majority black." The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.

NPR's Nina Totenberg sums up Kagan's opinion on the two districts:



"In one district, she said that a substantial minority was perfectly able to elect the candidate of their choice. In the second district, the majority agreed with the lower court that the lines had been drawn not on the basis of political affiliation as the Legislature argued, but on the basis of race, which is illegal."



The Republican-controlled North Carolina state Legislature drew the district lines. At issue in this case, as Nina has reported, is the relationship between party affiliation and race:



"The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear over the past quarter century that racial gerrymandering is an unconstitutional no-no, but partisan gerrymandering is still permissible. The question is: How do you tell the difference? Especially when the Voting Rights Act allows for some consideration of race to ensure minority representation, and when party affiliation often correlates with race."</s>The Supreme Court has effectively struck down two North Carolina congressional districts, saying that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing them.

"A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. "In this case, a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina officials violated that bar when they created two districts whose voting-age populations were majority black." The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.

NPR's Nina Totenberg sums up Kagan's opinion on the two districts at issue in Cooper v. Harris:



"In one district, she said that a substantial minority was perfectly able to elect the candidate of their choice. In the second district, the majority agreed with the lower court that the lines had been drawn not on the basis of political affiliation as the Legislature argued, but on the basis of race, which is illegal."



The Republican-controlled North Carolina state Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2010 census. Neither had majority black voting-age populations before the redrawing, and both did after. In District 1, in the north-east part of the state, the number of black voters grew to 52.7 percent from 48.6 percent, according to the court. Likewise in District 12, a narrow area in western North Carolina, the number increased to 50.7 percent from 43.8 percent.

At issue in this case, as Nina has reported, is the relationship between party affiliation and race:



"The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear over the past quarter century that racial gerrymandering is an unconstitutional no-no, but partisan gerrymandering is still permissible. The question is: How do you tell the difference? Especially when the Voting Rights Act allows for some consideration of race to ensure minority representation, and when party affiliation often correlates with race."



Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan in the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion agreeing in part and dissenting in part, and he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in this case.

Alito wrote that the court already had a precedent for District 12, because the justices ruled on it in 2001, when it "had the same basic shape." At the time, a lower court had ruled that the Legislature's main motive in drawing the district was to increase the number of black voters there; the Supreme Court disagreed, in part because the challengers could not produce an "alternative map" that could serve the same political goal "without producing the same racial effects."</s>A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina Republicans relied too heavily on race when they drew two bizarrely shaped congressional voting districts that were used until the 2014 election. The ruling upholds a lower court decision that ordered a new map for the 2016 election. Even with the new lines, Republicans maintained their hold ...</s>The Supreme Court has struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina because race played too large a role in their creation.(Source: Raycom Media)

The Supreme Court has struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina because race played too large a role in their creation.

 

The justices ruled Monday that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

 

Both districts have since been redrawn and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina because race played too large a role in their creation.

The justices ruled Monday that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor’s office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

Both districts have since been redrawn and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016.</s>The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina Monday because race played too large a role in their creation.

The justices ruled that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

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 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 can't 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. 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," Kagan wrote.

Alito said in dissent that the evidence instead shows that the district's borders "are readily explained by political considerations."</s>The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina on Monday because they had been gerrymandered along racial lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining the court’s liberals to form the majority.

The justices said North Carolina’s Republicans had packed additional black voters into the two already heavily African American districts, which in turn helped the GOP win more House seats in those voters’ previous districts.

Justice Elena Kagan said it was clear that race played a crucial role in how the districts were drawn. The “state’s mapmakers … purposely established a racial target” that African Americans would make up the majority, she said. And the result was “a district with stark racial borders.”

Kagan rejected the state’s defense that it acted for partisan political reasons. Maybe so, she said, but that did not excuse the drawing of lines based on race. The Constitution forbids a state “from separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” she said.

Thomas concurred in a separate opinion, saying that since the 1990s, he had taken the view that districts drawn along racial lines are unconstitutional.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, and was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The ruling in Cooper vs. Harris upholds a lower court decision and requires the state to redraw the districts, one in the northeastern part of the state and other that runs through the center of the state.

A voting law meant to increase minority representation has generated many more lawsuits than seats for people of color
The United States Supreme Court rejects two of North Carolina's congressional districts because they violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them.