Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 20 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

918

SHAW v. HUNT

Stevens, J., dissenting

The United States submits that District 12 does, in fact, incorporate a "substantial portio[n]" of the concentration of minority voters that would have given rise to a 2 claim. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27. Specifically, the Government claims that "District 12 . . . contains the heavy concentration of African Americans in Mecklenburg County, the same urban component included in the second minority opportunity district in some of the alternative plans." Ibid. The portion of District 12 that lies in Mecklenburg County covers not more than 20% of the district. See Exhibit 301 of Plaintiff-Intervenors, Map A, Map 9B. We do not think that this degree of incorporation could mean that District 12 substantially addresses the 2 violation. We hold, therefore, that District 12 is not narrowly tailored to the State's asserted interest in complying with 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is

Reversed.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join as to Parts II-V, dissenting.

As I have explained on prior occasions, I am convinced that the Court's aggressive supervision of state action designed to accommodate the political concerns of historically disadvantaged minority groups is seriously misguided. A majority's attempt to enable the minority to participate more effectively in the process of democratic government should not be viewed with the same hostility that is appropriate for oppressive and exclusionary abuses of political power. See, e. g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 243- 249 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 931-933 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 634-635 (1993) (Shaw I) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 316- 317 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Cousins v. City Council

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007