Introduction

Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of redistricting practices in North Carolina's congressional districts, specifically Districts 1 and 12. The appellants, including Roy Cooper, Governor of North Carolina, challenged the redrawn districts, alleging that race was used as the predominant factor in their creation, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs, David Harris and Christine Bowser, argued that the districts were racial gerrymanders intended to dilute African-American voting strength.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, affirmed the lower court's ruling that North Carolina's redistricting of Districts 1 and 12 was unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The Court held that race was the predominant factor in the creation of both districts and that North Carolina failed to provide sufficient justification under the strict scrutiny standard, particularly in relation to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a result, the redrawn districts were deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading to their invalidation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court's decision heavily relied on several key precedents:

• MILLER v. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995): Established a two-step framework for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ___ (2017): Clarified the strict scrutiny standard applied to race-based districting and emphasized the necessity of a compelling interest for such measures.
• THORNBURG v. GINGLES, 478 U.S. 30 (1986): Outlined the three prerequisites needed to establish vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• SHAW v. RENO, 509 U.S. 630 (1993): Recognized that redistricting based on race must withstand strict scrutiny and cannot be predominantly motivated by racial considerations without compelling reasons.
• Cromartie II, 532 U.S. 234 (2001): Addressed the difficulty in distinguishing between racial and political motivations in redistricting when race and party affiliation are highly correlated.
• Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ___ (2015): Reinforced that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can serve as a compelling interest but must be narrowly tailored.

These precedents collectively guided the Court in evaluating the evidence and determining that North Carolina's redistricting efforts were primarily racially motivated without adequate justification.

Legal Reasoning

The Court engaged in a meticulous application of the two-step analysis derived from MILLER v. JOHNSON:

• Step One: Determine if race was the predominant factor in redistricting. The Court found clear evidence that North Carolina set explicit racial targets for Districts 1 and 12, significantly altering their Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) to create majority-minority districts.
• Step Two: If race predominated, assess whether North Carolina provided a compelling interest and that the redistricting was narrowly tailored to that interest. The State argued compliance with the Voting Rights Act as the compelling interest. However, the Court concluded that North Carolina failed to demonstrate that the racial considerations were necessary to prevent vote dilution as outlined in THORNBURG v. GINGLES.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the State's contention regarding preclusion based on previous state court findings. It rejected the argument, emphasizing that differing factual determinations in separate cases warrant separate analyses.

Impact

The decision in Cooper v. Harris has significant implications for future redistricting efforts:

• Redistricting Practices: States must ensure that race is not the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless a compelling interest is demonstrably met.
• Voting Rights Act Compliance: While compliance with the Voting Rights Act remains a compelling interest, states must narrowly tailor their redistricting to serve this interest without overreliance on racial considerations.
• Judicial Review: The decision reinforces the judiciary's role in scrutinizing redistricting plans for racial motivations, promoting greater transparency and accountability in the redistricting process.

Ultimately, the ruling serves as a critical check against racial manipulation in electoral districting, upholding the principles of equal protection and fair representation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts are central to understanding this Judgment:

• Equal Protection Clause: A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws."
• Racial Gerrymandering: The deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to weaken the voting power of a racial group.
• Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of government actions that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications like race.
• Voting Rights Act of 1965: A landmark federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Sections relevant to this case include §2 (prohibiting vote dilution) and §5 (preclearance requirements).
• Vote Dilution: The practice of reducing the electoral influence of a group's votes, often through tactics like packing or cracking in redistricting.
• Black Voting Age Population (BVAP): The number of Black individuals of voting age within a given electoral district.
• Predominant Factor: The primary consideration or motivation behind a legislative or governmental action, in this context, the use of race in districting.

Understanding these concepts is essential to grasp the Court's reasoning and the broader implications of the Judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Cooper v. Harris underscores the judiciary's vigilant role in ensuring that electoral districting aligns with constitutional protections against racial discrimination. By affirming that North Carolina's redistricting of Districts 1 and 12 was primarily racially motivated without adequate justification, the Court reinforced the necessity for states to balance compliance with the Voting Rights Act against the imperative of avoiding racial gerrymandering.

This Judgment serves as a critical precedent, reminding state legislatures of the stringent standards required when race intersects with political processes. It ensures that the Equal Protection Clause remains a steadfast guardian against manipulative redistricting practices, thereby promoting fair and equitable representation within the democratic framework.