Thornburg v. Gingles
478 U.S. 30 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minority group challenging a multimember electoral district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must show that it is: 1) sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; 2) politically cohesive; and 3) that the white majority votes as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.
Facts:
- In 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan that utilized several multimember districts for its state House and Senate.
- Within several of these multimember districts, black citizens formed large, geographically compact communities.
- North Carolina had a long history of official, state-sponsored discrimination in voting, education, employment, and health services, which resulted in lower socioeconomic status for black citizens and hindered their political participation.
- Political campaigns in the state had historically been characterized by overt and subtle racial appeals.
- Analysis of election results in the challenged districts revealed a pattern of severe and persistent racially polarized voting, where black voters overwhelmingly supported black candidates and white voters overwhelmingly supported white candidates.
- Due to the bloc voting of the numerically superior white majority, candidates preferred by black voters were usually defeated.
- Prior to the lawsuit, the number of black elected officials from the challenged districts was minimal and not reflective of the black population percentage.
Procedural Posture:
- Black citizens of North Carolina sued the state's Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- The lawsuit challenged a 1982 state legislative redistricting plan, alleging that seven districts with multimember electoral structures violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- A three-judge panel was convened at the District Court level to hear the case.
- The District Court found that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the multimember districts in all seven challenged areas illegally diluted the voting strength of black citizens.
- The District Court entered an injunction preventing the state from using the contested portions of the redistricting plan.
- The State of North Carolina, as appellant, filed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the District Court's ruling as to five of the multimember districts.
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 the use of multimember legislative districts in North Carolina violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, by impairing the opportunity of black voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the use of multimember districts in five of the six challenged legislative districts violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by resulting in the dilution of black voters' electoral opportunities. The 1982 amendment to Section 2 established a 'results test,' which eliminates the requirement from Mobile v. Bolden to prove discriminatory intent. A violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, a minority group has less opportunity than others to elect representatives of their choice. For vote dilution claims involving multimember districts, plaintiffs must satisfy three preconditions: the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to be a majority in a single-member district; it is politically cohesive; and the white majority votes as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate. 'Racially polarized voting' refers to a statistical correlation between the race of voters and their candidate choices, not the causal reasons for that behavior. While the success of a few minority candidates does not foreclose a dilution claim, sustained proportional representation, as seen in House District 23, is inconsistent with a finding that minority voters' opportunities are impaired.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. I join the majority's holding and its three-part test but disagree with the plurality's reasoning in Part III-C that the race of the candidate is irrelevant. If a majority of black voters and a majority of white voters vote for different candidates who are all of one race, it is difficult to see this as the racial discrimination Section 2 was designed to prevent. This approach risks turning the statute into a tool for general interest-group politics rather than a remedy specifically for racial discrimination in voting.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, but on different grounds. The majority's three-part test creates a near-certain right to proportional representation for any sufficiently large, compact, and cohesive minority group, which contravenes Section 2's express disclaimer. The proper analysis should not focus so narrowly on electoral success but should consider the full 'totality of the circumstances' from White v. Regester, including the minority group’s overall access to the political process. While I agree with the judgment to invalidate the districts (except for House District 23), it should be based on a broader factual inquiry, not the Court's rigid, outcome-determinative test.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes, the use of multimember districts violates Section 2 in all of the challenged districts, including House District 23. The Court is correct to affirm the District Court's findings for most of the districts, but it errs in reversing the judgment for House District 23. The sustained election of one black candidate is just one factor among many considered by the District Court, which found that the totality of circumstances—including severe racial bloc voting and the legacy of discrimination—still impaired black voters' opportunities. The District Court's finding was not clearly erroneous and should be upheld.
Analysis:
Thornburg v. Gingles is the foundational case for modern vote dilution litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It established the controlling three-part legal framework, known as the 'Gingles test,' which shifted the focus from proving discriminatory intent to demonstrating discriminatory results. By defining 'racially polarized voting' as a statistical correlation rather than a matter of voter motive, the decision made vote dilution claims significantly more viable to prove with objective, quantitative evidence. This precedent empowered minority groups to challenge at-large and multimember electoral systems nationwide, leading to the creation of many more single-member, minority-opportunity districts.
