Focus Report, Volume 74, Number 8, March 1995 Page: 4
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
House Research Organization
which minority groups were predominant. But other
observers view the ruling as a needed step supporting
use of previously established districting principles and
discouraging states from creating racially segregated
districts that would constitute an apartheid system.
North Carolina, which had no black-majority
districts among the 11 drawn after the 1980 census,
for the 1990s had created one majority-black district.
After the U.S. Justice Department objected to the
plan, a second "majority-minority" district was
created, among 12 districts total. The new district
extended about 160 miles across the state and was no
wider than a highway in parts. That plan, approved
by the Justice Department, was later attacked in court
by the Shaw plaintiffs.
The federal court hearing the North Carolina case
ruled on August 2, 1994, that the 160-mile long
congressional district in North Carolina, although
deliberately drawn along racial lines, was nevertheless
constitutional because it helped remedy past
discrimination against blacks. By 2-1 the panel said
the district amounted to a racial gerrymander, but that
its odd shape alone was not reason to void it.
The U.S. Supreme Court majority in Shaw v. Reno,
in an opinion written by Justice O'Connor, said:
"Today we hold only that appellants have stated a
claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging
that the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a
reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it
can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters
into separate voting districts because of their race, and
that the separation lacks sufficient justification."
The court agreed with the appellants' contention
that if a reapportionment plan is so "bizarre" that it
can only be explained in terms of race, it "demands
the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws
that classify citizens by race." The majority opinion
said that a district would be considered "highly
irregular" if it can only be explained in terms of
separating voters on the basis of race, concentrates a
dispersed minority population in a single district and
disregards traditional districting criteria such as
compactness, contiguity and respect for political
subdivisions. The court said these criteria are not
constitutionally required, but may be important in
defeating a racial gerrymandering claim.The court majority said if allegations of racial
gerrymandering in a plan are not contradicted, the
courts must examine the plan to determine if it is
"narrowly tailored to further a compelling
governmental interest." The court said race
consciousness by legislatures "does not lead
inevitably to impermissible race discrimination."
An issue not addressed by the court was whether a
conflict exists between the Voting Rights Act's sec. 2,
which permits challenges to voting practices on the
grounds that they discriminate, and the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The clause states, "No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." The clause was adopted in
1868 in part to end white supremacy laws.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted by Congress in
1965 to protect the rights of minority voters to vote
in Southern states. Sec. 2 prohibits any practice that
dilutes minority voting rights in any state and sets
out how such a violation may be proved. Sec. 5
requires advance federal approval (preclearance) of
changes affecting voting rights in Texas and other
states in which minority voting rights have been
denied. The act has applied to Texas since 1975.
Ethic Makeup of Districts 18, 29 and 30
Texas Congressional Delegation
Anglo Black Hispanic OtherDistrict 18:
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Total Population
Voting Age PopulationD-Houston
31.3% 50.9% 15.3% 3.2%
35.2% 48.6% 3.7% 3.2%District 29:
Gene Green, D-Houston
Total Population 27.8% 10.2% 60.6% 2.0%
Voting Age Population 33.4% 9.8 % 55.4% 2.1%
District 30:
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-DallasTotal Population 31.4% 50.0%
Voting Age Population 36.1% 47.1%17.1% 2.4%
15.1% 2.4%J
Page 4
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Legislature. House of Representatives. Research Organization. Focus Report, Volume 74, Number 8, March 1995, periodical, March 13, 1995; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth641608/m1/4/?q=%22~1~1%22~1&rotate=90: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.