THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, December 10, 1994 TAG: 9412100232
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWS SERVICE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Short : 41 lines
In a racial case of potentially sweeping impact, the Supreme Court agreed Friday to clarify the fuzzy line between lawful and unlawful districts drawn to give minorities more clout in all levels of government.
The justices accepted a voting-rights dispute from Louisiana, one of several states that have interpreted the law in varying ways.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states with histories of racial discrimination are required to design congressional districts that give minority candidates a better chance of being elected.
As a result, Southern states were forced to carve out districts with a majority of African-American voters, which came to be called ``majority-minority'' districts.
Today, there are 17 black members of Congress from 10 Southern states. All are elected from districts with black voting majorities.
But in June 1993, in a North Carolina case called Shaw vs. Reno, the Supreme Court opened such districts to charges of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
A district is especially vulnerable to legal attack when it has a ``bizarre'' shape and contains a majority of voters with little in common but the color of their skin, the high court said.
Subsequently, redistricting disputes arose in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas over the proper interpretation of Shaw vs. Reno.
Federal judges have struck down three predominantly black congressional districts in Louisiana, Georgia and Texas.
KEYWORDS: VOTING U.S. SUPREME COURT
by CNB