| Hunt v. Cromartie | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued January 20, 1999 Decided May 17, 1999 |
||||||
| Full case name | James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina, et al., Appellants v. Martin Cromartie, et al. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The 12th district of North Carolina as drawn was unconstitutional because it was created for the purpose of placing African-Americans in one district thereby constituting illegal racial gerrymandering. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy | |||||
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the contentious 12th district of North Carolina. In an earlier case, Shaw v. Reno, 517 U.S. 899 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the 12th district of North Carolina as drawn was unconstitutional because it was created for the purpose of placing African-Americans in one district thereby constituting illegal racial gerrymandering. The Court then ordered the state of North Carolina to redraw the boundaries of the district.
In this follow up case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state was able to justify the new boundaries of the 12th district by showing that it was intended to create a safe seat for Democrats, and therefore the redrawn district was a constitutional example of political gerrymandering. Justice O'Connor acted as the swing vote, satisfied with the change in reasoning since Shaw v. Reno.