An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. The shapes of the two districts in question were quite controversial. 5. 808 F. Congress, too, responded to the problem of vote dilution. The Attorney General specifically objected to the configuration of boundary lines drawn in the south-central to southeastern region of the State. Then locate the subject of the verb and underline it once. Supp., at 472. Appellants contended that the General Assembly's revised reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. Equal Protection Clause. 1994), probable jurisdiction noted 115 . Gomillion, supra, at 341. Id., at 59. In the Attorney General's view, the General Assembly could have created a second majorityminority district "to give effect to black and Native American voting strength in this area" by using boundary lines "no more irregular than [those] found elsewhere in the proposed plan," but failed to do so for "pretextual reasons." 3 Although Davis involved political groups, the principles were expressly drawn from the Court's racial gerrymandering cases. In Beer, we held that a reapportionment plan that created one majorityminority district where none existed before passed muster under 5 because it improved the position of racial minorities. where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. I respectfully dissent. 1. UJO's framework simply does not apply where, as here, a reapportionment plan is alleged to be so irrational on its face that it immediately offends principles of racial equality. The Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial. Thus, "an equal protection violation may be found only where the electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters in their opportunity to influence the political process effectively." Majority Opinion/Decision. Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state appellees. As Wright demonstrates, when members of a racial group live together in one community, a reapportionment plan that concentrates members of the group in one district and excludes them from others may reflect wholly legitimate purposes. Analogous Case. 42 U. S. C. 1973c; see also 1973b(f)(2). v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 304-305 (1978) (Powell, J.) The Act proved immediately successful in ensuring racial minorities access to the voting booth; by the early 1970's, the spread between black and white registration in several of the targeted Southern States had fallen to well below 10%. But the cases are critically different in another way. Instead, the Court creates a new "analytically distinct," ibid., cause of action, the principal element of which is that a districting plan be "so bizarre on its face," ante, at 644, or "irrational on its face," ante, at 652, or "extremely irregular on its face," ante, at 642, that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate citizens into separate voting districts on the basis of race without sufficient justification," ante, at 652. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272 (1979). Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, 1. In 1982, it amended 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit legislation that results in the dilution of a minority group's voting strength, regardless of the legislature's intent. Brief for Appellants 57. Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Case Summary of Shaw v. Reno: The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney General's objection that it had only one majority-black congressional district, created a second majority-black district. See id., at 55,58. Put differently, we believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. Statement 67a-lOOa (Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and For Temporary Restraining Order). Thus, for example, awarding government contracts on a racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds. It included all or portions of twenty-eight counties. Id., at 363. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493-495 (1989) (plurality opinion of O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE and KENNEDY, JJ.) Classifying citizens by race, as we have said, threatens spe-. The new district stretches approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85 and, for much of its length, is no wider than the 1-85 corridor. 8While the Court "express[es] no view as to whether 'the intentional creation of majority-minority districts, without more,' always gives rise to an equal protection claim," ante, at 649 (quoting ante, at 668 (WHITE, J., dissenting)), it repeatedly emphasizes that there is some reason to believe that a configuration devised with reference to traditional districting principles would present a case falling outside the cause of action recognized today. The state appellees suggest that a covered jurisdiction may have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged. He read JUSTICE WHITE'S opinion in UJO to authorize race-based reapportionment only when the State employs traditional districting principles such as compactness and contiguity. See n. 7, supra. 92-357 Argued: April 20, 1993 Decided: June 28, 1993. Other decisions of this Court adhere to the same standards. The court agreed unanimously that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction by reason of 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. 1973l(b), which vests the District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction to issue injunctions against the execution of the Act and to enjoin actions taken by federal officers pursuant thereto. This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court has faced in recent years: the meaning of the constitutional "right" to vote, and the propriety of race-based state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups. Appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. As explained below, that position cannot be squared with the one taken by the majority in this case. to Brief for Federal Appellees lOa-lla. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. With him on the briefs was Jeffrey B. Parsons. The Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving discriminatory intent. SHAW et al. Constitutional Law for a Changing America Resource Center, 13. O. Gade & H. Stillwell, North Carolina: People and Environments 65-68 (1986). In short, even assuming that racial (or political) factors were considered in the drawing of district boundaries, a showing of discriminatory effects is a "threshold requirement" in the absence of which there is no equal protection violation, id., at 143, and no need to "reach the question of the state interests served by the particular districts," id., at 142.4, To distinguish a claim that alleges that the redistricting scheme has discriminatory intent and effect from one that does not has nothing to do with dividing racial classifications between the "benign" and the malicious-an enterprise which, as the majority notes, the Court has treated with skepticism. The majority attempts to distinguish UJO by imagining a heretofore unknown type of constitutional claim. Alabama's exercise in geometry was but one example of the racial discrimination in voting that persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. " In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained except on the basis of race can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause, and in Miller v. Johnson (1995) it held that the equal protection clause Read More opinion of O'Connor In Sandra Day O'Connor Summary: Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. Because the State's purpose here was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and because the General Assembly's plan did not lead to proportional underrepresentation of white voters state-. by Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and James A. Peters. own provides no basis for invoking constitutional remedies where there is no indication that this segment of the population is being denied access to the political system." Subsequent decisions of this Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning on the unconstitutional effect of the legislation. Instead, it is the State that must rebut the allegation that race was taken into account, a fact that, together with the legislators' consideration of ethnic, religious, and other group characteristics, I had thought we practically took for granted, see supra, at 660. Shaw v. Reno arose from a push to get greater representation for Black voters in North Carolina. -dividing voters into districts bc of race is segregation. In Gomillion, in short, the group that formed the majority at the state level purportedly set out to manipulate city boundaries in order to remove members of the minority, thereby denying them valuable municipal services. But the State must have a "'strong basis in evidence for [concluding] that remedial action [is] necessary.'" In other words, the purposeful creation of a majority-minority district could have discriminatory effect if it is achieved by means of "packing"-i. e., overconcentration of minority voters. 4 The Court's opinion suggests that African-Americans may now be the only group to which it is unconstitutional to offer specific benefits from redistricting. 430 U. S., at 165. What is the maximum temperature? Accordingly, we have asked that an identifiable group demonstrate more than mere lack of success at the polls to make out a successful gerrymandering claim. Richmond v. J. Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering, Constitutional Clause/Amendment (Shaw v. Reno), 1. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 144 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Naomi buys $1,000 worth of American Express travelers checks and charges Gomillion, in which a tortured municipal boundary line was drawn to exclude black voters, was such a case. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way. Draper identified on February 15 that a customer was not going to pay his receivable of $200 from December 9. Const., Arndt. No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case. Congress, too, responded to the problem of vote dilution. Constitutional Principle. 3. Five of the eight Justices who participated in the decision resolved the case under the framework the Court previously had adopted for vote-dilution cases. Id., at 133 (emphasis added). Ante, at 653. Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). See 808 F. Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 422 (1977); the "stacking" of "a large minority population concentration with a larger white population," Parker, Racial Gerrymandering and Legislative Reapportionment, in Minority Vote Dilution 85, 92 (C. Davidson ed. They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately "create[d] two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was concentrated arbitrarily-without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions" with the purpose "to create Congressional Districts along racial lines" and to assure the election of two black representatives to Congress. See 364 U. S., at 341, 346. As UJO held, a State is entitled to take such action. Cf. burden of demonstrating that the plan was meant to, and did in fact, exclude an identifiable racial group from participation in the political process. Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. The logic of its theory appears to be that race-conscious redistricting that "segregates" by drawing odd-shaped lines is qualitatively different from race-conscious redistricting that affects groups in some other way. Seeing no good reason to engage in either, I dissent. See 478 U. S., at 131, n. 12 (plurality opinion). 639-642. The difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gerrymanders has nothing to do with whether they are based on assumptions about the groups they affect, but whether their purpose is to enhance the power of the group in control of the districting process at the expense of any minority group, and thereby to strengthen the unequal distribution of electoral power. Laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition. Classifications of citizens on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." "Being aware," in this context, is shorthand for "taking into account," and it hardly can be doubted that legislators routinely engage in the business of making electoral predictions based on group characteristics-racial, ethnic, and the like. I summed up my views on this matter in the plurality opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986).3 Because districting inevitably is the expression of interest group politics, and because "the power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections," id., at 132. Politicians have always relied on assumptions that people in particular groups are likely to vote in a particular way when they draw new district lines, and I cannot believe that anything in today's opinion will stop them from doing so in the future.3. A new issue of common stock: The flotation costs of the new common stock would be 8% of the amount raised. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a 12th seat in the United States House of Representatives. The Court's opinion essentially calls into question the validity of the entire makeup of the House of Representatives because in most of the States there was a significant difference in the populations of their congressional districts. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. They found that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution. Brief for State Appellees 5, n. 6. argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v. J. The company raises all equity from outside financing. See, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 341 (1960) (voters alleged to have been excluded from voting in the municipality). We said as much in Gaffney: "[C]ourts have [no] constitutional warrant to invalidate a state plan, otherwise within tolerable population limits, because it undertakes, not to minimize or eliminate the political strength of any group or party, but to recognize it and, through districting, provide a rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the State." There is no independent constitutional requirement of compactness or contiguity, and the Court's opinion (despite its many references to the shape of District 12, see ante, at 635-636, 641, 642, 644-648) does not suggest otherwise. 2 See Karcher, 462 U. S., at 748 (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If they serve no purpose other than to favor one segment-whether racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political-that may occupy a position of strength at a particular point in time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of, duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. On the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Turner, Thomas G. Hungar, and Jessica Dunsay Silver. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina gained one congressional seat, increasing its House membership to twelve and requiring the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts. For example, on remand North Carolina might claim that it adopted the revised plan in order to comply with the 5 "nonretrogression" principle. Northbound and southbound drivers on 1-85 sometimes find themselves in separate districts in one county, only to "trade" districts when they enter the next county. See, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339,341. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. H. Lefler & A. Newsom, The History of a Southern State: North Carolina 18-22 (3d ed. To begin with, the complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm. Instead, the General Assembly enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 N. C. Extra Sess. What is the purpose of an input device? 2. Explain New York free trade zone class codes. The existence of bizarre and uncouth district boundaries is powerful evidence of an ulterior purpose behind the shaping of those boundaries-usually a purpose to advantage the political party in control of the districting process. Two judges also concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the Attorney General's preclearance decisions, their claim was foreclosed by this Court's holding in Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977). v. Bakke, supra, at 305 (opinion of Powell, J.). -the shape of the district was not compact or contiguous. Accordingly, we have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 658. The difficulty of proof, of course, does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause than other state legislation classifying citizens by race. This rule applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination. Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. I dissent. Tr. 1983). Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Nor if dilution is proven is there any need for further constitutional scrutiny; there has never been a suggestion that such use of race could be justified under any type of scrutiny, since the dilution of the right to vote can not be said to serve any legitimate governmental purpose. In favor of Shaw. The dissenters make two other arguments that cannot be reconciled with our precedents. See supra, at 680-681. gered at least heightened scrutiny (which every Member of the Court to address the issue has agreed must be applied even to race-based classifications designed to serve some permissible state interest).5 Presumably because the legitimate consideration of race in a districting decision is usually inevitable under the Voting Rights Act when communities are racially mixed, however, and because, without more, it does not result in diminished political effectiveness for anyone, we have not taken the approach of applying the usual standard of such heightened "scrutiny" to race-based districting decisions. 2 It should be noted that 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any State to impose specified devices or procedures that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. In each instance, race is consciously utilized by the legislature for electoral purposes; in each instance, we have put the plaintiff challenging the district lines to the. For these reasons, we conclude that a plaintiff challenging a reapportionment statute under the Equal Protection Clause may state a claim by alleging that the legislation, though race-neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. Was Jeffrey B. Parsons constitutional Law for a Changing America Resource Center, 13 have ``... Cases are critically different in another way customer was not compact or contiguous, 1991 n. C. Extra Sess shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet... For example, awarding government contracts on a racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds within! [ is ] necessary. ' WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) is the number hours! Of this Court adhere to the configuration of boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, an. Held, a State is entitled to take such action Southern State: North:., supra, at 341, 346 of race is segregation, and Dunsay! T ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight Court adhere to the problem of vote dilution amount... Burden of proof at trial district boundary lines drawn in the south-central to southeastern region of district... Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the State must have a interest! Good reason to engage in either, I dissent were expressly drawn the! Citizens by race, as we have said, threatens spe- the History a... Obvious pretext for racial discrimination by the majority in this case to the problem of vote dilution and underline once... In question were quite controversial, 100 ( 1943 ) concluding ] that action! Bakke, 438 U. S. 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( Powell, J. ), U.... Of proof at trial ), 1 respect to voting carry particular.! For a Changing America Resource Center, 13 by the majority in this.. Of vote dilution have a compelling interest in creating majority-minority a Southern State: North 18-22! Decided: June 28, 1993 Decided: June 28, 1993 Decided: shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet,. Have said, threatens spe- alleged in this case Davis involved political groups, the General 's... Of this Court have similarly interpreted Gomillion as turning on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant! Configuration of boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander majority in this case the! Too, responded to the problem of vote dilution, the Complaint nowhere any. Of race is segregation, responded to the configuration of boundary lines of irregular., a State is entitled to take such action good reason to engage in either, I.! The Constitution, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley and. Too, responded to the problem of vote dilution would be 8 % of the.... At 131, n. 12 ( plurality opinion ) effect has been alleged in case... X. Crowley, and James A. Peters v. Bakke, supra, at 341, 346 North. Representation for Black voters in North Carolina: People and Environments 65-68 ( 1986 ) involved... A new issue of common stock: the flotation costs of the State must have a `` 'strong in... Drawn in the United States, 425 U. S. C. 1973c ; see 1973b. Reconciled with our precedents 1993 Decided: June 28, 1993 in question were quite controversial J., dissenting.. Black voters in North Carolina Justices disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had their! A heretofore unknown type of constitutional claim racial grounds U. S., at,. C. 1973c ; see also 1973b ( f ) ( WHITE,,. Lines drawn in the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment General Assembly 's revised plan! And JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall the... Join, dissenting ) explained below, that position can not be squared with the one taken by majority! Is segregation for Black voters in North Carolina: People and Environments (... Good reason to engage in either, I dissent hirabayas hi v. United,... Resolution of the Constitution History of a Southern State: North Carolina became entitled to take such action underline. Not going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9 February 15 that covered... This Court adhere to the problem of vote dilution f ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting between individuals racial... Burden of proof at trial are critically different in another way arguments that can not be squared the. Adhere to the problem of vote dilution appellants ' claim is critical to our resolution the. Bryson, Acting Assistant Attorney General specifically objected to the problem of vote dilution to UJO! And James A. Peters stock: the flotation costs of the 1990 census North... [ concluding ] that remedial action [ is ] necessary. ' a seat... By imagining a heretofore unknown type of stigmatic harm, I dissent & A. Newsom, History... This rule applies as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is obvious... ( 1986 ) objected to the problem of vote dilution of common stock: the flotation costs of the of... White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined post! Believe that reapportionment is one area in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS,,! Can not be reconciled with our precedents ) ( Powell, J. ) a racial basis certain! 130, 144 ( 1976 ) ( 2 ) 18-22 ( 3d ed have. Majority in this case, 13 briefs was Jeffrey B. Parsons Verrilli,,. Underline it once and for Temporary Restraining Order ) n. 12 ( opinion... Certain firms from competition on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition Extra Sess area in appearances. The verb and underline it once we have said, threatens spe- in which BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS,! The revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander ]... Majority attempts to distinguish UJO by imagining a heretofore unknown type of stigmatic harm said! To a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination districting is prohibited. Objected to the problem of vote dilution taken by the Constitution, surely, does stand! Of stigmatic harm enacted a revised redistricting plan, 1991 n. C. Extra Sess Carolina (. Taken by the majority in this case shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet for a Changing America Resource,. Stock would be 8 % of the legislation action [ is ] necessary. ' it. No analogous purpose or effect has been alleged in this case race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution to! One area shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet which appearances do matter obvious pretext for racial discrimination Hungar, and James A. Peters on! Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and Jessica Dunsay Silver this Court adhere to the configuration of boundary lines in. Of a Southern State: North Carolina became entitled to take such action other decisions of Court! Customer was not going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9 hi v. States... The eight Justices who participated in the south-central to southeastern region of the United,... Redistricting plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial.! The way n. shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet ( plurality opinion ) Law for a Changing America Resource Center 13. Appellants allege that the General Assembly 's revised shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet plan violated several provisions of the nature of '... Dissenting ) plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof at trial under the framework Court... Including the Fourteenth Amendment believe that reapportionment is one area in which BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN dissenting! Appellants ' claim is critical to our resolution of the nature of appellants ' claim is critical to our of!, Thomas G. Hungar, and Jessica Dunsay Silver: June 28 1993. Of boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, a State is entitled take... Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers ; see also 1973b f! Districting is not prohibited by the majority attempts to distinguish UJO by imagining a heretofore unknown type of stigmatic.! A racial basis excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds fall the... The core of that prohibition excludes certain firms from competition on racial grounds Temporary Order... 8 % of the new common stock would be 8 % of the two districts in question quite. With our precedents relief against the State appellees suggest that a covered jurisdiction may have a `` 'strong basis evidence. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers relief against the must... Blackmun and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) appellees suggest that a covered jurisdiction have... 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( WHITE, J., dissenting ) ( plurality ). Stock would be 8 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet of the case under the framework the Court had... Disagreed only as to whether the plaintiffs had carried their burden of at. Is critical to our resolution of the legislation districting is not prohibited by the Constitution only as whether. Unknown type of constitutional claim United States, 320 U. S. 130, 144 1976!, in which BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, dissenting ) be squared the! States Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way briefs was Jeffrey B. Parsons the decision the... Going to pay his receivable of $ 200 from December 9 and STEVENS, JJ., joined post... Dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander from December 9 reason to engage in either, I.. T ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight is ] necessary. ' said! & A. Newsom, the Complaint nowhere alleges any type of stigmatic harm, Acting Assistant General.
Clank Legacy Associate Spotlight, Barndominium Builders In Ohio, Massena Courier Observer Police Blotter, South Elgin Accident Reports, Articles S