Dissents In a series of separate dissents, the dissenters argued that consideration of race in the districting process is inevitable, and that it does not violate the Constitution unless the party challenging a district shows that the district was drawn in away that deprives a racial group of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Some of the dissenters also argued that there are legitimate reasons to consider race because people of the same race share interests and often vote together, and that race-conscious gerrymandering only violates the Equal Protection Clause if the purpose of those drawing the boundaries is to enhance the power of the group in control of the process, at the expense of minority voters. Impact After the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court, it determined that North Carolina’s redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution because the state had a compelling, or very strong, interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act’s guarantee that a person’s vote cannot be limited or taken away due to their race. However, the case returned to the Supreme Court, this time as Shaw v. Hunt, and in June 1996, the Court struck down North Carolina’s plan. The Court discussed the fact that District 12 was drawn so oddly that it could not be explained by factors other than race. Ina decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court concluded that the map’s racially drawn lines violated the Equal Protection Clause and did not serve a compelling interest. To this day, courts use Shaw v. Reno to show that using race to make decisions about voting districts, school districts, and housing laws maybe unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, unless there is a compelling government interest other than race.