desire, so long as minority voting strength is not diluted as such. But in the case of the court seeing blatant racial gerrymanders it declared a much different outcome. In Shaw v. Reno, a case that declared a North Carolina district-in which the first black representative ever from the state was elected-unconstitutional. It was a difficult decision with the court decided in a 5-4 vote, but majority still was in favor of destroying the district. The opinion of the majority was that the district diluted whites and violated their right of equal protection under the law. However, the court did consider that race-conscious districting might be permissible as long as it does not contain bizarre boundaries. And it is the vagueness from this consideration that McKinneys district and its battle with the court stems.In a June 29, 1995 article of the New York Times it stated that the Miller v. Johnson could erase some of the recent electoral gains made by blacks in Congress and state legislatures. This decision was also a 5-4 vote in favor of the district being unconstitutional, and it was based on the fact that race was the predominant factor in creating the district. This decision is very ironic since it produces the reverse effect of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Times also stated that Kennedys opinion...left many important questions unanswered about how the new standard should be applied in other cases. In other words, how is it going to be decided that race is the predominant factor? This decision goes beyond the Shaw v.Reno case because it shows that shape is not the only problem of declaring racial gerrymanders. And as Deval L. Patrick, the assistant Attorney General for civil rights, stated, If you take all the decisions today together, the court has really raised more questions than it has answered. From the 1990 census 14 states have adopted redistricting plans and the number of black and Hispanic representatives have ...
