PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS EQUAL ELECTORAL OPPORTUNITY: THE SUPREME COURT REEVALUATES THE
USE OF RACE IN REDISTRICTING IN Johnson v. De Grandy
Matthew W. Dietz
3 J.L. & Pol'y 497 (1995)
This Comment analyzes the confusing jurisprudence of dilution claims under the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutionally protects a minority's right to have a voice in government. The Act was meant to abolish both overt restraints on voting and registration and subtle impediments caused by districting schemes that dilute minority electoral strength. Legislators commonly created single- member districts in response to dilutive schemes. A single-member district is one in which one representative, the candidate of the minority's choice, is elected because the minority has a sufficient electorate majority. The U.S. Supreme Court in Thornberg v. Gingles set forth when a single-member majority-minority district may be created in response to a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 1994 the U.S. Supreme Court reevaluated those limits in Johnson v. De Grandy.

The De Grandy Court proposed a new "totality of circumstances" test. This test shifts the Court's focus from voting behavior to discriminatory practices. The proportionality of minority representation, although central, is no longer dispositive in the determination of the existence of a section 2 violation. After reviewing the history of these claims under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution and surveying the lower courts interpretation of the De Grandy standard, this Comment argues that the absence of proportionality as a dispositive factor hinders a court's ability to measure dilution claims absent clear guidelines. This Comment urges the Court to establish a test which determines a minority group's actual political opportunity by analyzing minority interests rather than concentrating on race as a proxy for interests as the practice of relying on race is not required by the Voting Rights Act and is contrary to the objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment.