Miller v. Johnson
515 U.S. 900 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if race was the predominant factor in drawing district lines, subordinating traditional race-neutral principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. A plaintiff is not required to show that a district's shape is bizarre to state a valid claim.
Facts:
- Following the 1990 census, Georgia's population growth entitled it to an eleventh congressional seat.
- At the time, Georgia had one majority-black district out of ten total districts.
- The Georgia General Assembly drafted a redistricting plan creating two majority-black districts.
- The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), exercising its preclearance authority under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, rejected this plan and a subsequent plan, objecting that Georgia had not created a third majority-minority district.
- Pressured by the DOJ's objections, the General Assembly adopted a third plan that created three majority-black districts.
- This plan created the Eleventh Congressional District, which stretched 260 miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic coast, connecting disparate black populations through narrow land corridors.
- The Eleventh District split numerous counties and municipalities to aggregate black voters from urban centers in Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah.
- Following the plan's adoption and preclearance, elections were held, and black candidates were elected to Congress from all three majority-black districts.
Procedural Posture:
- Five white voters from Georgia's Eleventh Congressional District, including Zell Miller, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against various state officials.
- The plaintiffs alleged the district was a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A three-judge panel was convened to hear the case, and the United States intervened to defend the district's constitutionality.
- The District Court found for the plaintiffs, holding that race was the 'overriding, predominant force' in the drawing of the Eleventh District, rendering it unconstitutional.
- The state officials, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a congressional redistricting plan violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when race is the predominant, overriding factor in drawing district lines, even if the resulting district is not bizarre in shape?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A congressional redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause when race is the predominant factor in its creation, subordinating traditional districting principles. The Court held that all racial classifications imposed by government are subject to strict scrutiny. It clarified that Shaw v. Reno (1993) did not establish 'bizarreness' of a district's shape as a threshold requirement for a racial gerrymandering claim; rather, shape is just one form of circumstantial evidence. A plaintiff can prove a violation by showing that the legislature subordinated traditional, race-neutral districting principles—such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions—to racial considerations. Here, the district court's finding that race was the predominant factor in creating Georgia's Eleventh District was not clearly erroneous, given the district's shape, demographics, and direct evidence of the legislature's intent to create a third majority-black district to satisfy the DOJ. The state's asserted compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act was rejected because the DOJ's interpretation of the Act, which demanded the maximization of majority-minority districts, was an overreach of its statutory authority and raised serious constitutional questions.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The redistricting plan is unconstitutional because race was the predominant factor. This concurrence emphasizes that the threshold standard—that the legislature 'subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles... to racial considerations'—is a demanding one. To trigger strict scrutiny, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state relied on race in substantial disregard of customary districting practices. This standard appropriately targets extreme instances of gerrymandering, in line with Shaw's objective, without casting doubt on the vast majority of districts where race was merely one of many factors considered.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The redistricting plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The appellee white voters lacked standing as they failed to allege a legally cognizable injury; the concept of 'representational harm' is flawed and rests on the very racial stereotypes the majority purports to condemn. The Court misapplies the term 'gerrymander' to a plan designed to share political power with a historically disadvantaged minority group, rather than one designed to entrench the power of a dominant group. There is no moral or constitutional equivalence between policies designed to remedy racial subordination and those, like segregation, designed to perpetuate it.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No. The redistricting plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's new 'race-as-predominant-factor' standard improperly expands the judicial role in the inherently political process of legislative districting. Unlike the district in Shaw, Georgia's Eleventh District was not bizarrely shaped and its creation gave significant consideration to traditional factors like respecting county and precinct lines. State legislatures should be permitted to recognize that shared ethnicity can form a legitimate community of interest, just as they have for other ethnic groups. By applying strict scrutiny to a plan that enhances minority representation—a remedial measure—the Court wrongly equates it with invidious discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified and expanded the racial gerrymandering cause of action from Shaw v. Reno. By replacing a focus on a district's 'bizarre' shape with a 'predominant factor' test focused on legislative motive, the Court made it easier for plaintiffs to challenge majority-minority districts. This ruling intensified judicial scrutiny of the tension between the Equal Protection Clause's demand for race neutrality and the Voting Rights Act's goal of ensuring minority representation. It requires courts to closely examine the legislative record to determine if race improperly subordinated traditional, neutral districting principles, increasing the likelihood of litigation over redistricting plans nationwide.
