Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act versus the 14th Amendment
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibits any redistricting plan that dilutes the voting power of minorities. Since Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), plaintiffs preliminarily meet that standard by proving three conditions: the minority group must be large and compact enough to form a district, it must vote cohesively, and the white majority must usually defeat the minority’s candidate of choice. When those “Gingles preconditions” are satisfied, federal courts often order the state to draw an additional majority-minority district.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, however, takes a different approach to race in line-drawing. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court held that districts whose shapes are “unexplainable on grounds other than race” trigger strict scrutiny, the toughest constitutional test. Miller v. Johnson (1995) refined the rule: if race is the predominant factor and the map is not “narrowly tailored” to a compelling interest, the plan is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court listed compliance with the VRA as a compelling interest that can justify using race, but only when the state has “good reasons” to think Section 2 requires it.
Balancing Act
Since then, the Court has tried to balance the two commands. In Cooper v. Harris (2017), it struck down two North Carolina districts, finding the state had invoked the VRA without evidence that additional Black-majority seats were legally necessary. By contrast, Allen v. Milligan (2023) affirmed that Alabama had to add a second majority-Black district because the Gingles test clearly showed vote dilution. Together, the cases suggest that a state may consider race only to the extent necessary to avoid a proven Section 2 violation, no more and no less.
Do the two doctrines actually conflict? Many scholars say they are in tension but not irreconcilable. Columbia law professor Travis Crum calls the framework “a riddle,” yet notes that strict-scrutiny review still leaves room for VRA compliance, but only when supported by evidence. In practice, the doctrines have coexisted: Section 2 supplies the why for creating certain minority opportunity districts, while the 14th Amendment polices the how, insisting those districts be no more race-based than necessary.
Find us on:
