Supreme Court of the United States
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
June 28, 2006548 U.S. 399
Summary
The Court affirmed the rejection of the statewide partisan-gerrymandering challenge and the District 24 Voting Rights Act challenge, reversed the rejection of the District 23 Voting Rights Act claim, vacated the judgments on constitutional claims it did not reach, and remanded. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that dismantling District 23 diluted Latino voting strength under § 2; noncompact District 25 could not compensate for that injury. Kennedy's other reasoning lacked a majority. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer in Parts I and II, would invalidate the entire plan and independently find unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in districts replacing old District 24. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, agreed with the District 23 holding but would remand the District 24 statutory claim without a categorical majority-population requirement. Justice Breyer separately would invalidate the entire plan as partisan entrenchment. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with rejecting the statewide and District 24 challenges but disputed the District 23 violation. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas throughout and by Roberts and Alito in Part III, would reject the partisan claims as nonjusticiable, reject the statutory dilution claims, and uphold the challenged districts against the racial equal-protection claims.
Holding
- Whether the Court should reconsider the justiciability of partisan-gerrymandering claims.. The Court did not revisit the existing justiciability holding and instead examined whether the proposed claims supplied a manageable, reliable measure of unconstitutional partisan unfairness.
- Whether exclusively partisan motivation for mid-decade redistricting established an unconstitutional statewide gerrymander.. Kennedy concluded that appellants' sole-motivation theory did not establish an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- Whether the 2003 plan violated the equal-population requirement by using 2000 census data.. Kennedy, joined by Souter and Ginsburg, concluded that appellants had not established an equal-population violation.
- Whether redrawing District 23 violated § 2 and whether new District 25 remedied the injury.. Redrawing District 23 violated § 2, and District 25 did not compensate for the loss because its Latino population was not reasonably compact.
- Whether dismantling old District 24 violated § 2.. Kennedy, joined by Roberts and Alito, concluded that the District Court's rejection of the District 24 claim should stand, without deciding whether § 2 can protect a group comprising less than half the electorate.
Docket 05-204
Cited authorities
- 79 Stat. 437
- Pub. L. 90-196, 81
- 55 Stat. 762
- 79 N.C. L. Rev. 1383
- 36 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 547
- 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1001
- 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 541
- 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 312