Miller vs. Johnson
Miller v. Johnson, 63 U.S.L.W. 4726 (1995).
Docket no. 94-631, decided June 29, 1995
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decison, declared unlawful North Carolina's 11th Congressional district, since its borders had been determined largely on the basis of the race of local residents. Although North Carolina had been ordered by the Justice Department to create such racially-motivated districts to increase the probablity of electing black representatives, the court found that such racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the racial equality provisions of the 14th amendment.
- prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
Opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy
- asserts that motive as well as geography is important in deciding constitutionality
of electoral districts
Opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
- endorses and qualifies Supreme Court's role in reviewing electoral districts
- Primary Dissent written by Justice Ruth
- argues that the majority is at variance with
precedent by diluting the strength of minority voting
- Secondary Dissent written by Justice John Paul Stevens
- affirms Justice O'Connor's dissent, and further argues that no actual harm accrued to the appellant
- Transcript of the proceedings before
- the official transcript of the hearing,
held May 28, 1995
Positions on the case by other parties
- The Southern Poverty Law Center
- "Brief Regarding the Implications
of Miller vs. Johnson"
argues that the decision sets back efforts at even racial representation
- Americans for Democratic Voting
- "Miller vs. Johnson and the Right
to Have One's Vote Count"
argues that racially-based electoral districts degrade the meaning of every citizens' vote
- Coalition on Voting
- "Aftermath of Miller vs. Johnson"
argues for increased minority voting to offset unballanced electoral districts
- Ballot Access
- "Miller vs. Johnson, the Dilution Deception"
argues that race-based districting hurts the cause of minority representation
- Free Voting Coalition
- "The Dilution Deception"
argues that racial districting is an unlawful attept to predetermine voting outcomes
Other Related Cases
- Bush vs. Vera (heard December 1, 1995)
- regarding redistricting to protect incumbents.
- Shaw vs. Reno (decided October 24, 1994)
- regarding districts with "bizzare shapes".
- Anderson vs. Hayes> (decided July 23, 1974)
- validated use of racial criteria in districting
Other Related Sites
- Minority Voting Project
- works to increase minority representation in Congress
- Voter Empowerment USA
- opposes block voting and other schemes which deviate from current practice
This page was last updated November 13, 1995