Miller v. Johnson - Significance, A Case Of Racial Gerrymandering, Points Of Affirmation And Dissension, Impact, Further Readings

redistricting appellants decision georgia

Appellants

Zell Miller, et al., Lucious Abrams, Jr., et al., and United States

Appellees

Davida Johnson, et al.

Appellants' Claim

The state of Georgia's redistricting plan enacted in 1991 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when the Eleventh District was created. The appellants claimed that the redistricting plan was based upon racial factors and did not serve any compelling governmental interest.

Chief Lawyer for Appellants

David F. Walbert

Chief Lawyer for Appellees

A. Lee Parks

Justices for the Court

Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

29 June 1995

Decision

The Supreme Court determined that the Georgia redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as tested by the decision in Shaw v. Reno (1993). The redistricting of Georgia with the creation of the Eleventh District was done predominantly on a racial basis.

Related Cases

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1995).
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).

Additional Topics

Miller v. Johnson - A Case Of Racial Gerrymandering

Between 1980 and 1990 the state of Georgia had only one congressional district that had a black majority. Due to the results of the decennial census for 1990 it was determined that the black voters of Georgia were entitled to an additional eleventh congressional seat. This prompted the Georgia General Assembly to redraw congressional district boundaries and prepare a reapportionment plan. Designat…

Miller v. Johnson - Points Of Affirmation And Dissension

The Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the decision of the lower court. The justices confirmed that the Georgia redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority expressed three primary points in their decision. First, the proceedings showed that race was the primary criterion in creating the districts. The district boundaries were of such a bizarre nature…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.