| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The U.S. Supreme Court case of James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Martin Cromartie et al., 1998 dealt with the issue of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina's 12th Congressional District. The plaintiffs argued that the state had unconstitutionally used race as a predominant factor when redrawing district lines following the 1990 census, violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under law by segregating voters based on race without compelling interest or narrowly tailored means to achieve it. However, the defendants contended that political affiliation and not race was primarily considered during redistricting since African Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in this area; thus making them an important demographic for creating a competitive Democratic district. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants (5-4), stating there wasn't sufficient evidence proving that racial considerations predominated over legitimate legislative objectives such as maintaining partisan balance or keeping communities intact while drawing boundaries.
In the dissenting opinion for James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Martin Cromartie et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to remand the case back to District Court was unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources. He believed that there was already sufficient evidence on record demonstrating that race had been used as a predominant factor in redrawing district lines, which is unconstitutional under previous Supreme Court rulings such as Shaw v Reno (1993). The fact that legislators were trying to create a safe seat for African American voters did not justify this racial gerrymandering because it still involved making decisions based primarily on race rather than traditional districting principles like compactness or respect for political subdivisions. Therefore, he felt it would have been more appropriate for the court to affirm the lower court's ruling against North Carolina instead of sending it back down for further proceedings.