# Thornburg v. Gingles > Supreme Court of the United States · June 30, 1986 · 478 U.S. 30 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430646 ## Case - **Full name:** THORNBURG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Et Al. v. GINGLES Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 30, 1986 - **Citations:** 478 U.S. 30; 54 U.S.L.W. 4877; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1082; 106 S. Ct. 2752; 92 L. Ed. 2d 25; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 121 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by White - **Judges:** Brennan Announced the Judgment of the Court And - **Cited by:** 1,004 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430646 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that district court erred in “ignoring the sustained success [of] black voters” in electing candidates of choice, page ad in the weekly paper. He went to several meetings that were arranged by the Democratic party, and he was also able to arrange for introductions to g… - explaining that the 1982 amendments to § 2 of the VRA were a rejection of the position of the plurality in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), which “required proof that the contested electoral practice or mechanism was adopted or maintained wi… - concluding that "the District Court's approach, which tested data derived from three election years in each district, and which revealed that blacks strongly supported black candidates, while, to the black candidates' usual detriment, whites rarely did, satisfactorily addresse… - recognizing that “[mjultimember districts and at-large election schemes ... are not per se violative of minority voters’ rights,” but affirming the district court’s conclusion that the multimember electoral structure at issue did violate § 2 because it resulted in racially dis… - recognizing that "[m]ultimember districts and at-large election schemes ... are not per se violative of minority voters' rights," but affirming the district court's conclusion that the multimember electoral structure at issue did violate § 2 because it resulted in racially dis… ## Opinion text Justice White, concurring. I join Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, IV-A, and V of the Court’s opinion and agree with Justice Brennan’s opinion as to Part IV-B. I disagree with Part III-C of Justice Brennan’s opinion. *83 Justice Brennan states in Part III-C that the crucial factor in identifying polarized voting is the race of the voter and that the race of the candidate is irrelevant. Under this test, there is polarized voting if the majority of white voters vote for different candidates than the majority of the blacks, regardless of the race of the candidates. I do not agree. Suppose an eight-member multimember district that is 60% white and 40% black, the blacks being geographically located so that two safe black single-member districts could be drawn. Suppose further that there are six white and two black Democrats running against six white and two black Republicans. Under Justice Brennan’s test, there would be polarized voting and a likely § 2 violation if all the Republicans, including the two blacks, are elected, and 80% of the blacks in the predominantly black areas vote Democratic. I take it that there would also be a violation in a single-member district that is 60% black, but enough of the blacks vote with the whites to elect a black candidate who is not the choice of the majority of black voters. This is interest-group politics rather than a rule hedging against racial discrimination. I doubt that this is what Congress had in mind in amending § 2 as it did, and it seems quite at odds with the discussion in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 149-160 (1971). Furthermore, on the facts of this case, there is no need to draw the voter/candidate distinction. The District Court did not and reached the correct result except, in my view, with respect to District 23. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430646. Public record. Not legal advice.