ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, December 6, 1995 TAG: 9512060075
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
A skeptical and clearly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday debated the validity of Texas and North Carolina congressional districts that gave blacks and Hispanics greater political clout.
Taking race into account when drawing election districts often protects minorities' ``right to participate in the political process in a fair way,'' argued Clinton administration lawyer Paul Bender.
Voting districts based on race are just as improper as public water fountains labeled for use by people based on their sex or race, contended Robinson O. Everett, the lawyer for North Carolina voters challenging the state's congressional districts.
The potential stakes are huge. Justice Stephen Breyer said thousands of federal, state and local elections could some day be affected by the court's decision, expected by July.
Drawing election district boundaries for partisan advantage is as old as politics and has been tolerated as long as bedrock constitutional rules such as ``one-person, one-vote'' have been followed.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act says election districts can be unlawful if they deny minorities the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in a North Carolina case that districts designed to help minority voters may violate white voters' rights. Last June, the court ruled in a Georgia case that such election districts must be presumed unlawful if race was the main factor in creating them.
Lower courts struck down three urban congressional districts in Texas but upheld North Carolina's 12-district map.
Julius Chambers, representing a group of black North Carolina voters, reminded the justices that the new districts were created after a long history of excluding blacks from the voting process.
``Black citizens, for the first time in more than 90 years, have an opportunity to have a voice in the election of congressmen in North Carolina,'' Chambers said.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether creating minority-dominated districts is the best way to reach that goal. Many people believe minorities would have a stronger voice if they made up less than half of the voters in a larger number of districts, he said.
Both previous redistricting decisions were 5-4 votes with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Scalia and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas the majority.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the 1993 ruling. Breyer, after replacing the retired Harry Blackmun, joined them in dissent last June.
That division was on display Tuesday.
O'Connor, Scalia and Rehnquist led the way with volleys of hostile questions. In numerous comments and questions, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer cast themselves as defenders.
Bender noted that the North Carolina districts were drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
O'Connor responded: ``The problem is the 14th Amendment and its prohibition that states cannot act on the basis of race alone. That's why we're into this.''
LENGTH: Medium: 65 linesby CNB