U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once described North Carolina's 12th Congressional district as so narrow in some parts that you could span it by opening the doors on both sides of your car.
The district, which has been repeatedly contested in court since its inception in 1991, will face its second challenge in the Supreme Court this fall.
The Court agreed to hear the case after its ruling on June 29 that a "majority-minority" district in Georgia, drawn to include mostly black voters, was unconstitutional because racial composition was the primary cause of its shape.
Critics of the "majority-minority" district in North Carolina, which follows Interstate 85 from Durham to Charlotte (see diagram), maintain that because it was drawn on the basis of racial composition, it violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
"Racial gerrymandering is illegal, immoral and destructive," said Robinson Everett, a professor at the law school and one of the plaintiffs in the case.
U.S. Rep. Melvin Watt, who represents the 12th District, said he did not think the district would be redrawn, pointing to the arguments used in previous court decisions upholding the district.
The unusual shape of the district is a result of lawmakers' efforts to create an "urban character" by piecing together urban areas in the middle of the state, Watt said. Lawmakers also sought to protect Democratic control of the district, he said.
"I think it's ironic that you can draw lines to protect incumbents but not to protect minorities," he said.
Some, however, say that the Court will again declare the district unconstitutional, particularly in light of the Georgia decision.
Paul Gronke, assistant professor of political science, said he expected the Court to abolish the district because it does not conform to traditional criteria used to draw voting districts, such as contiguity and compactness.
The decision will hinge on whether the Court determines that race was the only factor behind the district's shape, he said.
The 12th District will be more difficult to declare unconstitutional than the district in Georgia, said law professor William Van Alstyne. In Georgia, lawmakers attempted to create three majority-minority districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act did not require the creation of majority-minority districts, and that such quotas were unconstitutional.
North Carolina legislators did not make as strong an effort as did Georgia legislators to conform to any quota when they drew the 12th District, Van Alstyne said.
Nevertheless, he said the district would only be declared constitutional if there were other compelling reasons besides race for its shape. He said he did not expect the Court to maintain the district.
Both Van Alstyne and Everett said they were surprised that the Supreme Court decided to hear the 12th District case. Van Alstyne said he had expected the Court to send the decision back down to a lower court to be reviewed in light of the ruling in the Georgia case.
Gronke said that if the districts are redrawn, the Democrats would lose a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
He said that legislators would redraw the districts in such a way as to diffuse the strong Democratic support that the North Carolina black constituency traditionally has provided. To do otherwise would be to risk the seats of any Republicans currently in office.
"If I was giving the Republicans advice, I would put blacks in districts with Republican incumbents that are very safe," he said.
In the long run, elimination of the 12th District would result in a reduction of black representation in North Carolina, Gronke said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.