Miller v. Johnson
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority-majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
| Miller v. Johnson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 19, 1995 Decided June 29, 1995 | |
| Full case name | Zell Miller v. Davida Johnson |
| Citations | 515 U.S. 900 (more) 115 S. Ct. 2475; 132 L. Ed. 2d 762; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4462 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Together with No. 94-797, Abrams et al. v. Johnson et al., and No. 94-929, United States v. Johnson et al., also on appeal from the same court. |
| Holding | |
| Georgia's congressional redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Breyer, Souter (except as to Part III-B) |
| Laws applied | |
| Equal Protection Clause | |
Background
Only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was primarily African American between 1980 and 1990. According to the 1990 Census, Georgia's increase in population entitled the state to an eleventh congressional seat. That prompted Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department denied several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, as the state's population was 27% African-American, but formed a majority in only one of the now 11 districts, the Assembly drew the 11th district to create a second majority-black district. However the district lacked any sort of organic structure, and was deemed a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended approximately 260 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. The case was brought to court by white voters in the Eleventh Congressional District of the state of Georgia.
Question Before the Supreme Court
Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
Decision of the Court
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Court. Ruling against the district, the Court declared the district unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the interpretation in Shaw v. Reno (1993). The court noted that in some instances, "a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race." Applying the rule laid down in Shaw v. Reno requires strict scrutiny whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process.[1][2]
See also
- Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003): Georgia State Senate redistricting case
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964): Earlier Georgia congressional redistricting case
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 515
References
- "Miller v. Johnson – 515 U.S. 900 (1995)". The Oyez Project: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
- "Miller v. Johnson – 515 U.S. 900 (1995)". Justia. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
External links
- Text of Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress
Further reading
- Cimino, Chapin (1997). "Class-Based Preferences in Affirmative Action Programs after Miller v Johnson: A Race-Neutral Option, or Subterfuge?". The University of Chicago Law Review. 64 (4): 1289–1310. doi:10.2307/1600217. JSTOR 1600217.
- Leib, Jonathan I. (August 1998). "Communities of interest and minority districting after Miller v. Johnson". Political Geography. 17 (6): 683–689. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(97)00032-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Rush, Mark E. (January 1, 1995). "From Shaw v. Reno to Miller v. Johnson: Minority Representation and State Compliance with the Voting Rights Act". Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 25 (3): 155–172. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a038202.