North Carolina's district maps struck down by Supreme Court for 'racial gerrymandering'

The Supreme Court has ruled that officials in North Carolina “racially gerrymandered” congressional voting districts.

The court struck down two districts that were created in 2011 when Republicans controlled the state legislature and governor’s office, saying that race had played too large a role in their creation.

The court said gerrymandering placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken black voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

The Associated Press said that both districts have since been redrawn, and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016. Even with the new districts, Republicans maintained their 10-3 edge in congressional seats.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the state did not offer compelling justifications to justify its reliance on race in either district.

The issue of race and redistricting one is a familiar one at the Supreme Court and Ms Kagan noted that one of the districts was “making its fifth appearance before this court”.

States have to take race into account when drawing maps for legislative, congressional and a host of municipal political districts. At the same time, race cannot be the predominant factor without very strong reasons, under a line of high court cases stretching back 20 years.

A three-judge federal court had previously struck down the two districts. The justices upheld the lower court ruling on both counts.

The court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling on District 1 in northeastern North Carolina. Ms Kagan wrote that the court will not “approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence”.

The justices split 5-3 on the other district, District 12 in the southwestern part of the state. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to form a majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not part in the case.

The state insisted that race played no role at all in the creation of one district. Instead, the state argued that Republicans who controlled the redistricting process wanted to leave the district in Democratic hands, so that the surrounding districts would be safer for Republicans.

“The evidence offered at trial...adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration,” Ms Kagan wrote.