Part I of this Article reviews the congressional redistricting process in Georgia, particularly the State's efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and avoid the dilution of minority voting strength. Part II describes the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge and the State's asserted defenses, or more accurately its lack of asserted defenses. Part III argues that the decision of the majority rests upon wholly false assumptions about the colorblindness of the political process and the harm caused by remedial redistricting. Part IV notes the expansion in Miller of the cause of action first recognized in Shaw v. Reno. Part V comments on the lack of clear, fair standards in Miller and how that will impact upon legislative decision making and litigation. Part VI discusses the negative impact of the decision, which allows, for the first time, local federal district courts directly to review the preclearance decisions of the Attorney General on the administration of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Part VII argues that Miller has the potential for purging substantial numbers of minorities from elected office in the South and wiping out many of the gains so painstakingly won under the Voting Rights Act over the last thirty years.
Can Minority Voting Rights Survive Miller v. Johnson,
Mich. J. Race & L.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol1/iss1/4