Cite as: 517 U. S. 899 (1996)
Stevens, J., dissenting
defendant's action could be understood as impermissibly race based, but also that the defendant's assertedly race-neutral explanation for that action was in fact a pretext for racial discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U. S. 765, 767- 768 (1995); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 518-519 (1993). Similarly, I understand Shaw I, Miller, De-Witt, and Bush to require plaintiffs to prove that the State did not respect traditional districting principles in drawing majority-minority districts. See Bush, post, at 958.
In holding that the present record shows race to have been the "predominant" consideration in the creation of District 12, the Court relies on two pieces of evidence: the State's admission that its "overriding" purpose was to " 'create two congressional districts with effective black voting majorities,' " ante, at 906; and the " 'geographically non-compact' " shape of District 12, ibid. In my view, this evidence does not suffice to trigger strict scrutiny under the "demanding" test that Miller establishes. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S., at 928 (O'Connor, J., concurring).8
North Carolina's admission reveals that it intended to create a second majority-minority district.9 That says noth-8 It is unclear whether the majority believes that it is the combination of these two pieces of evidence that satisfies Miller, or whether either one would suffice.
9 Citing to trial and deposition testimony, the majority also relies on a statement by North Carolina's chief mapmaker, Gerry Cohen, that the creation of a majority-minority district was the " 'principal reason' " for the configurations of District 1 and District 12. Ante, at 906. Mr. Cohen's more complete explanation of the " 'principal reason' " was to create "two majority black districts that had communities of interest within each one." Tr. 514. What Mr. Cohen admitted, therefore, was only that the State intentionally drew a majority-minority district that would respect traditional districting principles. Moreover, Mr. Cohen's "admission" in his deposition only pertained to District 1. App. 675. Finally, he explained in his deposition that "other reasons" also explained that district's configuration. Ibid. Absent a showing that those "other reasons" were race based, Mr. Cohen's admission does not show that North Carolina
933
Page: Index Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007