Easley v. Cromartie

• Decision Date: 18 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. 99-1864.,99-1864.
• Citation: 532 U.S. 234
• Parties: EASLEY, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. v. CROMARTIE et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

532 U.S. 234

EASLEY,^* GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. v. CROMARTIE et al.

No. 99-1864.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued November 27, 2000.

Decided April 18, 2001^†

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined, post, p. 259.

Walter E. Dellinger argued the cause for the state appellants. With him on the briefs were Michael F. Easley, former Attorney General of North Carolina, Tiare B. Smiley and Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorneys General, and Brian D. Boyle. Adam Stein argued the cause for appellants Smallwood et al. With him on the briefs were Todd A. Cox, Norman J. Chachkin, and Jacqueline A. Berrien.

Robinson O. Everett argued the cause for appellees in both cases. With him on the brief were Martin B. McGee and Douglas E. Markham.^‡

Justice Breyer, delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we review a three-judge District Court's determination that North Carolina's Legislature used race as the "predominant factor" in drawing its 12th Congressional District's 1997 boundaries. The court's findings, in our view, are clearly erroneous. We therefore reverse its conclusion that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1.

I

This "racial districting" litigation is before us for the fourth time. Our first two holdings addressed North Carolina's former Congressional District 12, one of two North Carolina congressional districts drawn in 1992 that contained a majority of African-American voters. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899 (1996) (Shaw II).

A

In Shaw I, the Court considered whether plaintiffs' factual allegation—that the legislature had drawn the former district's boundaries for race-based reasons—if true, could underlie a legal holding that the legislature had violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that it could. It wrote that a violation may exist where the legislature's boundary drawing, though "race neutral on its face," nonethe less can be understood only as an effort to "separate voters into different districts on the basis of race," and where the "separation lacks sufficient justification." 509 U. S., at 649.

In Shaw II, the Court reversed a subsequent threejudge District Court's holding that the boundary-drawing law in question did not violate the Constitution. This Court found that the district's "unconventional," snakelike shape, the way in which its boundaries split towns and counties, its predominately African-American racial makeup, and its history, together demonstrated a deliberate effort to create a "majority-black" district in which race "could not be compromised," not simply a district designed to "protect Democratic incumbents." 517 U. S., at 902-903, 905-907. And the Court concluded that the legislature's use of racial criteria was not justified. Id., at 909-918.

B

Our third holding focused on a new District 12, the boundaries of which the legislature had redrawn in 1997. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541 (1999). A three-judge District Court, with one judge dissenting, had granted summary judgment in favor of those challenging the district's boundaries. The court found that the legislature again had "used criteria . . . that are facially race driven," in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. App. to Juris. Statement in No. 99-1864, p. 262a (hereinafter App. to Juris. Statement). It based this conclusion upon "uncontroverted material facts" showing that the boundaries created an unusually shaped district, split counties and cities, and in particular placed almost all heavily Democratic-registered, predominantly African-American voting precincts, inside the district while locating some heavily Democratic-registered, predominantly white precincts, outside the district. This latter circumstance, said the court, showed that the legislature was trying to maximize new District 12's African- American voting strength, not the district's Democratic voting strength. Ibid.

This Court reversed. We agreed with the District Court that the new district's shape, the way in which it split towns and counties, and its heavily African-American voting population all helped the plaintiffs' case. 526 U. S., at 547— 549. But neither that evidence by itself, nor when coupled with the evidence of Democratic registration, was sufficient to show, on summary judgment, the unconstitutional racebased objective that plaintiffs claimed. That is because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the evidence also was consistent with a constitutional political objective, namely, the creation of a safe Democratic seat. Id., at 549-551.

We pointed to the affidavit of an expert witness for defendants, Dr. David W. Peterson. Dr. Peterson offered to show that, because North Carolina's African-American voters are overwhelmingly Democratic voters, one cannot easily distinguish a legislative effort to create a majority-AfricanAmerican district from a legislative effort to create a safely Democratic district. Id., at 550. And he also provided data showing that registration did not indicate how voters would actually vote. Id., at 550-551. We agreed that data showing how voters actually behave, not data showing only how those voters are registered, could affect the outcome of this litigation. Ibid. We concluded that the case was "not suited for summary disposition" and we reversed the District Court. Id., at 554.

C

On remand, the parties undertook additional discovery. The three-judge District Court held a 3-day trial. And the court again held (over a dissent) that the legislature had unconstitutionally drawn District 12's new 1997 boundaries. It found that the legislature had tried "(1) to cure the previous district's constitutional defects" while also "(2) drawing the plan to maintain the existing partisan balance in the State's congressional delegation." Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 407, 413 (EDNC 2000). It added that to "achieve the second goal," the legislature "drew the new plan (1) to avoid placing two incumbents in the same district and (2) to preserve the partisan core of the existing districts." Ibid. The court concluded that the "plan as enacted largely reflects these directives." Ibid. But the court also found "as a matter of fact that the General Assembly . . . used criteria . . . that are facially race driven" without any compelling justification for doing so. Id., at 420.

The court based its latter, constitutionally critical, conclusion in part upon the district's snakelike shape, the way in which it split cities and towns, and its heavily AfricanAmerican (47%) voting population, id., at 413-415—all matters that this Court had considered when it found summary judgment inappropriate, Cromartie, 526 U. S., at 544. The court also based this conclusion upon a specific finding—absent when we previously considered this litigation—that the legislature had drawn the boundaries in order "to collect precincts with high racial identification rather than political identification. " 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (emphasis added).

This last-mentioned finding rested in turn upon five subsidiary determinations:

(1) that "the legislators excluded many heavily-Democratic precincts from District 12, even when those precincts immediately border the Twelfth and would have established a far more compact district," id., at 419; see also id., at 421 ("more heavily Democratic precincts . . . were bypassed . . . in favor of precincts with a higher AfricanAmerican population");

(2) that "additionally, Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Weber, showed time and again how race trumped party affiliation in the construction of the 12th District and how political explanations utterly failed to explain the composition of the district," id., at 419; (3) that Dr. Peterson's testimony was "`unreliable' and not relevant," id., at 420 (citing testimony of Dr. Weber);

(4) that a legislative redistricting leader, Senator Roy Cooper, had alluded at the time of redistricting "to a need for `racial and partisan' balance," ibid.; and

(5) that the Senate's redistricting coordinator, Gerry Cohen, had sent Senator Cooper an e-mail reporting that Cooper had "moved Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and now needed to take about 60,000 out of the 12th," App. 369; 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 420.

The State and intervenors filed a notice of appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction. 530 U. S. 1260 (2000). And we now reverse.

II

The issue in this case is evidentiary. We must determine whether there is adequate support for the District Court's key findings, particularly the ultimate finding that the legislature's motive was predominantly racial, not political. In making this determination, we are aware that, under Shaw I and later cases, the burden of proof on the plaintiffs (who attack the district) is a "demanding one." Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 928 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring). The Court has specified that those who claim that a legislature has improperly used race as a criterion, in order, for example, to create a majority-minority district, must show at a minimum that the "legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to racial considerations." Id., at 916 (majority opinion). Race must not simply have been "a motivation for the drawing of a majority-minority district," Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 959 (1996) (O'Connor, J., principal opinion) (emphasis in original), but "the `predominant factor' motivating the legislature's districting decision," Cromartie, supra, at 547 (quoting Miller, supra, at 916) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs must show that a facially...