ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, June 14, 1996 TAG: 9606140036
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
NOTE: Lede
THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING, expected to have widespread repercussions, is considered a blow to minority candidates.
The Supreme Court threw out predominantly minority congressional districts in Texas and North Carolina on Thursday in rulings that could crush other efforts to maximize the political clout of blacks and Hispanics.
Voters are ``more than mere racial statistics,'' the court declared in two 5-4 rulings that invalidated three districts in Texas and one in North Carolina. The justices said the states unlawfully made race the main factor in drawing the boundaries.
Such districts ``cause constitutional harm'' because they ``convey the message that political identity is, or should be, predominantly racial,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in one of the court's main opinions.
The decisions, sure to affect many federal, state and local elections nationwide, delighted some conservatives but outraged civil rights groups.
Abigail Thernstrom of the conservative Institute for Justice called the rulings ``a victory for those who favor a colorblind society.''
But Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said the decisions ``really torch the fundamental right of African Americans, Hispanics and others to be included as participatory citizens in this democracy.''
The American Civil Liberties Union's Laughlin McDonald said, ``The inevitable consequence ... will be to produce a Congress that is increasingly white at a time that the nation is becoming increasingly diverse.''
President Clinton, who has enjoyed strong support from minority voters, said he was disappointed by the rulings. ``I think the affected voters will see that they need to work ever harder to make sure their voices are heard,'' he said.
The immediate impact in Texas and North Carolina appeared to be political chaos. It is unclear whether new districts must be drawn for the November general elections.
In Texas, the court struck down two predominantly black congressional districts, the 30th in Dallas and the 18th in Houston, as well as the majority-Hispanic 29th in Houston.
In North Carolina, the black-majority 12th district was declared unlawfully created.
All four districts are represented by Democrats.
The decisions were silent as to how officials in each state should respond. What happens next could be up to special three-judge federal courts that have presided over the disputes.
In Texas, the three judges are Edith Jones, David Hittner and Melinda Harmon - all Republican appointees.
In North Carolina, the judges are Democratic appointees James Phillips and Earl Britt and Republican appointee Richard Voorhees.
The court first struck down North Carolina's reapportionment plan in 1993. Since that year, a slim majority of the justices have seemed intent on minimizing race as a factor for drawing election districts.
``Our precedents, which acknowledge voters as more than mere racial statistics, play an important role in defining the political identity of the American voter,'' O'Connor wrote.
She said the court's work ``evinces a commitment to eliminate unnecessary and excessive government use and reinforcement of racial stereotypes.''
But Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters, wrote: ``The court's aggressive supervision of state action designed to accommodate the political concerns of historically disadvantaged minority groups is seriously misguided.
``A majority's attempt to enable the minority to participate more effectively in the process of democratic government should not be viewed with the same hostility that is appropriate for oppressive and exclusionary abuses of political powers.''
O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in voting to strike down the congressional districts at issue.
Stevens was joined in dissent by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The decisions were not all bad news for civil rights activists.
O'Connor, writing for herself, Rehnquist and Kennedy, said race-conscious redistricting might be constitutional in some cases even if minority-majority districts were created intentionally.
Those who challenge such districts must prove that race was ``the predominant factor'' that subordinated other legitimate redistricting considerations, she said.
That important holding apparently is supported by seven of the court's members - the O'Connor three and the four dissenters.
And at least five justices - O'Connor and Thursday's dissenters - moved the court away from the notion that major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 might be unconstitutional.
In both rulings, the court said the redistricting plans are ``not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.''
In the Texas dispute, Texas Republicans had challenged 24 of the state's 30 congressional districts.
LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Map by KRT.by CNB