"A reapportionment plan that draws in persons, who may have very little in common but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid" (Rosenschein). Clearly, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor understood the weight of her decisions. With those words in mind, O'Connor along with the other eight Justices deliberated over the case of Hunt v. Cromartie. She delivered the aforementioned warning in the previous case of Shaw v. Hunt, which established the basis and background for this trial. The appellee in Hunt v. Comartie, Cromartie, and his lawyers argued that the state of North Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. On the other hand, Governor Hunt and his team of lawyers insisted that the new district was an instance of political gerrymandering, a legal means to ensure their political party (Democrats) maintained a seat in the House of Representatives.
[...] As a result, for me, the end justifies the means. The influential case of Hunt v. Cromartie set critical precedents regarding affirmative action and the practice of gerrymandering. The case of Shaw v. Hunt established the basis and background for this trial. In Hunt v. Cromartie, Cromartie and his lawyers argued that the state of North Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. On the other hand, Governor Hunt and his team of lawyers insisted that the new district was an instance of political gerrymandering, a [...]
[...] Ultimately, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found in favor of Governor Hunt and the State of North Carolina on April Justices Rhenquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented. In their dissent, they cited the lack of contiguity in the new boundary. In addition, they believed that this case once again fell under the condemned practice of racial gerrymandering. Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted as the majority. In his majority opinion, Justice Breyer explained that the court had been persuaded by the difference between voting registration and voting behavior. [...]
[...] Trying to ensure an African-American voice again, the state of North Carolina and Governor Hunt found themselves on trial, again. One resident of the newly created district twelve, Cromartie filed suit as the representative of his area. The trail began on Monday, November The side of Cromartie argued that the state had made the same mistake of racial gerrymandering. It revealed that, in spite of the Supreme Court's previous decision, the North Carolina State Legislature built one majority black district not to keep a Democratic seat but rather to ensure a strong African-American voice from the state in Congress. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
