Back in their proper place:: racial gerrymandering in Georgia

During this decade the United States Supreme Court has made significant rulings on constitutional challenges to representative districts purposefully drawn to empower minorities as district majorities. Arguments have set the Voting Rights Act against the Fourteenth Amendment's goal of a colorblind society. The court has generally struck down the aggressive drawing of majority–minority districts, finding them racial classifications not narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state interests. This study analyzes and evaluates these legal developments, principally through a focus upon the most recent litigation in Georgia. My thesis — that the Court has muddled the jurisprudence of representation, voting rights and racial equality because of its inability to treat politics and geography with consistency, depth, rigor and judgment — will be explored in connection with five questions. First, can compact and regular shape provide the courts with a concept to properly assess the legal issues without involving the courts in intractable and injudicious political questions? Second, does a bizarrely shaped district “broadcast” such an invidious racial message as to constitute a “stigmatic harm” which provides plaintiffs with standing to challenge the district? Third, is a district's bizarre shape critical evidence of the districters' intent to discriminate? Fourth, is “community of interest” a significantly richer criterion than shape for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims and defenses? Fifth, what is the proper legal role of traditional criteria of territorial representation as the benchmarks for distinguishing permissible from impermissible race-conscious districting?