Key Takeaways
- Miller v. Johnson (1995) established that race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting: The Supreme Court held that congressional district lines drawn primarily on the basis of race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
- Strict scrutiny applies to racially motivated redistricting: The Court clarified that any redistricting plan where race is the dominant factor must withstand the highest level of judicial review, requiring states to prove that such plans are necessary to achieve a compelling interest, such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
- The decision reshaped the legal landscape for minority representation and redistricting: Miller v. Johnson, building on Shaw v. Reno, set significant limits on racial gerrymandering, influencing subsequent redistricting efforts and litigation nationwide.
Introduction
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), stands as a milestone in the jurisprudence surrounding racial gerrymandering and the redistricting process in the United States. Decided by the Supreme Court on June 29, 1995, this case addressed the question of whether the creation of congressional districts with race as the predominant factor violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision had profound implications for how states approach redistricting, especially in the context of ensuring minority representation and complying with the Voting Rights Act.
For those seeking a detailed case summary, the Oyez project provides an accessible overview, and the full text of the decision is available on Justia.
Background of Miller v. Johnson
The Political and Legal Context
The early 1990s were a period of significant change in American electoral politics, particularly in the South. Following the 1990 census, states were required to redraw their congressional districts to reflect population shifts. At the same time, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) continued to play a crucial role in ensuring that minority voters, especially African Americans in the South, had an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) was actively involved in reviewing state redistricting plans to ensure compliance with the VRA. The DOJ often encouraged or required states to create additional majority-minority districts—districts where a racial minority group constitutes a majority of the voting-age population—to prevent dilution of minority voting strength.
The Georgia Redistricting Plan
In Georgia, the state legislature sought to redraw its congressional districts after the 1990 census. The DOJ, influenced by proposals from civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), pressed Georgia to create a third majority-Black district. The resulting Eleventh Congressional District was notably irregular in shape, winding through several counties and connecting disparate Black communities in a manner that was difficult to justify on traditional, nonracial grounds.
A group of Georgia voters challenged the plan, arguing that the state had engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering by prioritizing race over traditional districting principles, such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions.
For a summary of the litigation and its context, see the American Redistricting Project’s case summary.
The Legal Issues
The Equal Protection Clause and Racial Gerrymandering
At the heart of Miller v. Johnson was the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that by making race the predominant factor in drawing district lines, Georgia had discriminated against voters on the basis of race, violating their constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court had previously addressed similar issues in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), where it held that bizarrely shaped districts drawn primarily for racial reasons could be subject to strict scrutiny. However, Shaw left unresolved the precise standard for proving unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
The Role of the Voting Rights Act
A central tension in Miller v. Johnson was the interplay between the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, while Section 5 requires certain jurisdictions (including Georgia at the time) to obtain federal approval, or “preclearance,” for any changes to their voting procedures, including redistricting.
The DOJ’s insistence on additional majority-minority districts was based on its interpretation of the VRA’s requirements. However, the Supreme Court needed to determine whether compliance with the VRA justified the use of race as the predominant factor in redistricting, or whether such use could itself violate the Constitution.
For a scholarly overview, see the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute summary.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Majority Opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. The Court held that Georgia’s Eleventh Congressional District was unconstitutional because race was the predominant factor in its creation, and the plan was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
The Court emphasized that while compliance with the Voting Rights Act is a compelling interest, states must still ensure that their redistricting plans do not subordinate traditional districting principles to racial considerations unless absolutely necessary. The majority opinion clarified that strict scrutiny applies whenever race is the predominant factor in redistricting, regardless of the state’s motives.
The Court stated:
“The constitutional wrong occurs when race becomes the ‘dominant and controlling’ consideration in drawing district lines and the lines are drawn for the purpose of segregating voters by race and not for other, legitimate districting considerations.”
The full text of the decision is available here.
The Standard of Review
Miller v. Johnson established that plaintiffs challenging a redistricting plan on equal protection grounds must show either that the district’s shape is so bizarre that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race, or provide direct evidence that race was the predominant factor in the legislature’s decision-making process. Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that its use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, dissented. The dissent argued that Georgia’s plan was a good-faith attempt to comply with the Voting Rights Act and that the DOJ’s pressure to create additional majority-Black districts was not sufficient to render the plan unconstitutional. The dissenters warned that the majority’s approach could undermine efforts to remedy historical discrimination and ensure minority representation.
Legal Principles Established
Strict Scrutiny for Racial Gerrymandering
Miller v. Johnson confirmed that strict scrutiny applies whenever race is the predominant factor in redistricting. Under this standard, the state must prove that its use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest, such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
Predominance of Race
The Court clarified that a redistricting plan is unconstitutional if race is the “dominant and controlling” consideration, even if other, nonracial factors are also present. This predominance test requires courts to look beyond the mere presence of racial considerations and examine whether traditional districting principles were subordinated to racial objectives.
The Role of Traditional Districting Principles
Traditional districting principles include compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, and preservation of communities of interest. The Court held that these principles must not be subordinated to race unless required by a compelling interest.
Impact and Legacy
Immediate Effects in Georgia
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Georgia was required to redraw its congressional districts in a manner that did not make race the predominant factor. This had immediate political consequences, as the new districts altered the composition of the state’s congressional delegation.
Influence on Redistricting Nationwide
Miller v. Johnson set a precedent that affected redistricting efforts across the United States. States became more cautious about using race as a factor in drawing district lines, seeking to avoid legal challenges under the Equal Protection Clause. The decision also prompted further litigation as states and civil rights groups tested the boundaries of the Court’s ruling.
For ongoing analysis and case summaries, see the Federalist Society’s resource on Miller v. Johnson.
Relationship to Shaw v. Reno and Subsequent Cases
Miller v. Johnson built upon the principles established in Shaw v. Reno, which first recognized that racial gerrymandering claims could be brought under the Equal Protection Clause. Together, these cases form the foundation of modern racial gerrymandering jurisprudence.
Subsequent cases, such as Bush v. Vera (1996) and Cooper v. Harris (2017), have further refined the standards for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims. Courts continue to grapple with the complex interplay between the need to prevent racial discrimination in voting and the constitutional prohibition on using race as the predominant factor in redistricting.
Ongoing Challenges and Debates
The legacy of Miller v. Johnson is evident in the ongoing debates over redistricting, minority representation, and the proper interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. While the decision limited the use of race in redistricting, it did not eliminate the need for states to consider race in order to comply with federal law and ensure fair representation for minority voters.
Legal scholars and practitioners continue to analyze the implications of Miller v. Johnson. For a comprehensive case brief, see Quimbee’s summary.
Practical Implications for Attorneys and Policymakers
Redistricting in Practice
For attorneys advising states or local governments, Miller v. Johnson underscores the importance of balancing compliance with the Voting Rights Act against the constitutional prohibition on racial gerrymandering. States must carefully document their decision-making processes and ensure that race is not the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless absolutely necessary.
Redistricting plans should prioritize traditional districting principles and only consider race to the extent required to comply with federal law. Legal challenges are more likely to succeed if plaintiffs can show that a district’s shape or composition is unexplainable on grounds other than race.
Litigation Strategies
Plaintiffs challenging redistricting plans must be prepared to offer evidence that race was the predominant factor in the legislature’s decision-making process. This may include analysis of district shapes, demographic data, legislative records, and communications between state officials and outside groups.
Defendants, typically state governments, must be able to demonstrate that their plans were motivated by legitimate, nonracial considerations and that any use of race was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Policy Considerations
Policymakers must navigate the complex legal landscape created by Miller v. Johnson and subsequent cases. Efforts to enhance minority representation must be carefully crafted to avoid running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, failure to consider race when necessary could result in violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Continuing Relevance
The 2020 Census and Beyond
Every ten years, the United States conducts a census that triggers a new round of redistricting. The principles established in Miller v. Johnson remain highly relevant as states redraw their congressional and legislative districts. Legal challenges based on racial gerrymandering continue to arise, and courts rely on Miller v. Johnson as a guiding precedent.
Evolving Legal Standards
While Miller v. Johnson set clear limits on the use of race in redistricting, the legal standards continue to evolve. The Supreme Court and lower courts have issued numerous decisions refining the application of strict scrutiny and the predominance test. Attorneys and policymakers must stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance with both constitutional and statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Miller v. Johnson is a pivotal case in the field of election law and constitutional law. By holding that race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, the Supreme Court established a clear standard for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims. This decision has shaped the legal landscape for minority representation and continues to influence redistricting efforts across the United States.
For further research and authoritative legal resources, visit Counsel Stack, where attorneys can access comprehensive legal research tools and insights.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Miller v. Johnson and related legal principles. It is not legal advice. Redistricting law is complex and fact-specific, and there are many nuances not covered here. For advice on specific cases or legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or legal professional.
