In the 2008 case of Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of The North Carolina State Board of Elections et al. v. Dwight Strickland et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding racial gerrymandering and voting rights in North Carolina. The plaintiffs argued that redistricting plans violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting African-American voting strength, as they did not form a majority in any district despite constituting over 39% population in one district. However, defendants contended that creating a majority-minority district was unnecessary because African-Americans had been able to elect their preferred candidates with help from crossover votes from white voters. In its decision, the court held that if minority groups could demonstrate an ability to elect representatives of choice with assistance from some members outside their community (crossover districts), then there is no violation under Section 2 even if they do not constitute more than half the population.

In the dissenting opinion for Bartlett v. Strickland, Justice David Souter argued that North Carolina's redistricting plan should be upheld because it was a good faith effort to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "ability to elect" in Section 2, arguing that this phrase does not require minority voters to constitute more than 50% of a district’s population. Instead, he suggested that whether minority voters have an ability to elect should depend on various factors such as voting patterns and practices. Souter also criticized the majority for creating an inflexible rule which could undermine efforts by states like North Carolina to ensure fair representation for racial minorities without resorting to race-based gerrymandering.