WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court opened the door Monday for more debate about
North Carolina’s much-debated 12th District, which now encompasses all of Rowan
County. In its ruling, the
nation’s high court made it harder for federal judges to invalidate election
districts drawn by state legislatures just because they suspect race was the major factor
in setting the boundaries.
The unanimous ruling in the 12th
District case could have great influence on redistricting disputes nationwide after the
2000 census by forcing judges to be more certain of the role race played before striking
down a reapportionment plan.
The decision did not mark any
change, however, in the Supreme Court’s consistent hostility to making race the prime
factor for drawing election district boundaries. The court has been intent since 1993 on
minimizing such use of race.
In a series of decisions, the
court has said that drawing districts primarily to maintain or enhance minority voting
power unlawfully discriminates against white voters.
But the justices voted Monday to
overturn a three-judge federal court’s conclusion that the 12th Congressional
District was unlawfully drawn by the N.C. Legislature in 1997.
The district is represented by
Democrat Mel Watt, one of two blacks elected to Congress in 1992 from a state that had not
sent a black to Washington since 1901.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing
for the court, said the lower court wrongly chose not to conduct a full trial before
ruling last year that the 1997 election map was too race-conscious. The three-judge court
made that ruling in what lawyers call a ‘‘summary judgment’’ after
considering the 12th District’s shape and its racial makeup.
‘‘Evidence tends to
support an inference that the state drew its district lines to support an impermissible
racial motive – even though ... (the challengers) presented no direct evidence of
intent,’’ Thomas said. ‘‘Summary judgment, however, is appropriate
only where there is no genuine issue of material fact.’’
Thomas also wrote: ‘‘The
Legislature’s motivation is itself a factual question’’ and should have
required more evidence.
The North Carolina dispute now
will return to the three-judge federal court, with the justices having offered precious
little in the way of new guidance on just how much evidence is needed to conclude that
race played too large a role in the drawing of an election district.
The congressional districts drawn
in 1997 were never used because the three-judge panel threw it out. That 1997 drawing had
Rowan County divided between the 6th District of Republican Howard Coble of Greensboro and
Watt’s 12 District. It eliminated Rowan from former Congressman Bill Hefner’s
8th District.
The N.C. General Assembly then had
to redraw the districts again for the 1998 election, delaying the congressional primaries
until September, followed closely by the general election.
In the 1998 redistricting, all of
Rowan and portions of four other counties were placed in Watt’s 12th District. Watt
defeated Salisbury dentist J. Scott Keadle in the November 1998 election for this version
of the 12th.
Watt, who was visiting Rowan
County Monday, said he was gratified that the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
three-judge panel. But he warned that his constituents now and those in the 1997 plan
should not think this ends the case.
Watt had favored the 1997 version
of redistricting, believing it formed an ‘‘urban district.’’ That
district ran 95 miles from Charlotte to Greensboro, included parts of Winston-Salem and
had a black population of just under 47 percent.
The 1998 redrawing, now in place,
reduced the black population in the 12th to 33 percent. The three-judge panel approved
that plan.
‘‘I am confident that
when the case is tried, the three-judge panel will conclude that the state
Legislature’s interest in creating an urban congressional district was proper and
that no improper racial motivation was responsible for this decision,’’ Watt
said Monday.
‘‘I also hope that the
litigation about the districts drawn on the basis of the 1990 census can be concluded
before the state has to start drawing districts based on the year 2000 census.’’
In a series of decisions since
1993, the Supreme Court has scuttled attempts by state and local lawmakers to draw
districts to help minority political clout if race was the ‘‘predominant
factor.’’ Most of those rulings were reached by 5-4 votes that traced the
court’s ideological divisions.
Thomas, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy
united in those cases to control the outcome.
Dissenting in those previous cases
were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer.
Those four justices joined in the
final result Monday but not in Thomas’ opinion. Stevens wrote separately for the
four.
‘‘The record supports
the conclusion that most loyal Democrats living near the borders of District 12 happen to
be black Democrats, and I have no doubt that the Legislature was conscious of that fact
when it enacted the apportionment plan,’’ Stevens said. ‘‘But everyone
agrees that that fact is not sufficient to invalidate the district.’’ |
Today's Paper
