Cooper v. Harris
137 S. Ct. 1455
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- North Carolina redrew its congressional map after the 2010 census; two districts (District 1 and District 12) were changed so that each became majority black by voting‑age population (BVAP ~52.7% and ~50.7%).
- Plaintiffs (David Harris and Christine Bowser) sued the State alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the Equal Protection Clause; a three‑judge District Court held both districts unconstitutional, finding race predominated in drawing each.
- For District 1, legislators and consultant Dr. Thomas Hofeller expressly targeted a >50% BVAP and pulled heavily black parts of Durham into the district to meet that racial target.
- For District 12, the mapmakers altered the existing serpentine district, adding large numbers of black voters (notably from Guilford County); plaintiffs presented testimony and documents (including a §5 preclearance submission and testimony from Congressman Mel Watt) that officials acted to secure VRA preclearance by increasing BVAP.
- On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and (for race‑based justifications) applied strict scrutiny, assessing whether the State had a "strong basis in evidence" to think the Voting Rights Act required the race‑based designs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether race predominated in drawing District 1 | Harris: mapmakers set an explicit racial target (>50% BVAP) and subordinated traditional criteria to race | NC: redistricting to comply with VRA and population equality; political/neutral reasons | Held: race predominated in District 1 (clear‑error standard); district is a "textbook" racial gerrymander |
| Whether race‑based design of District 1 was justified under §2 of the VRA (narrow tailoring) | Harris: historical crossover voting showed no effective white bloc‑voting, so §2 didn’t require a majority‑minority district | NC: adding ~100,000 new residents changed the district; believed Strickland required >50% BVAP to avoid §2 liability | Held: NC lacked a "strong basis in evidence"; its reliance on a misreading of Bartlett/Strickland was legal error; strict scrutiny failed |
| Whether race predominated in drawing District 12 (race vs. politics) | Harris: contemporaneous statements, preclearance materials, Hofeller testimony, Watt testimony, and expert analysis show race (VRA preclearance concern) drove the changes | NC: changes were partisan — packing Democrats to create Republican‑leaning neighboring districts; race correlates with party so racial effect was incidental | Held: District Court’s factual finding that race predominated is plausible and not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs were required to submit an alternative map to rebut political motive | Harris: not required; direct and circumstantial evidence may suffice | NC: Cromartie II requires an alternative map showing political goals could be met without racial effects | Held: An alternative map can be persuasive but is not a mandatory prerequisite; plaintiffs may prevail on other (direct or circumstantial) evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (race predominance test; race cannot be predominant unless narrowly tailored)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (three‑part test for Vote Dilution under §2)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (racial gerrymandering doctrine and strict scrutiny)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (race predominance can be shown by direct statements plus circumstantial evidence)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (limits of §2 where minority cannot form a majority; discussion of crossover districts)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear‑error standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (invalidated §4 coverage formula for §5 preclearance)