were written by two moderate justices: O'Connor (Shaw) and Kennedy (Miller). Both of these justices have staked out centrist positions on the Court and have frequently acted as swing votes. O'Connor has even acted as a brake upon the more conservative justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas), becoming famous for concurrences which limit the effects of the majority opinions written by the conservatives. It would therefore appear that Justices Kennedy and O'Connor will continue to join Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in allowing white plaintiffs to bring equal protection claims. Similarly, Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg adhered to the liberal arguments against applying the Equal Protection Clause to apportionment legislation intended to bolster minority voting power. Justice Souter showed his liberal tendencies by dissenting in both cases.
A 1996 decision in this area confirmed this pattern. In Bush v. Vera, a 5-4 majority of the Court held that strict scrutiny must be applied to laws which draw congressional districts along racial lines. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, said that strict scrutiny must apply in any case where race was the predominant motivating factor. She held that while the state had a compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act, the means used (drawing district boundaries along racial lines) was not narrowly tailored enough. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, argued in his dissent that strict scrutiny need not always apply in cases where race is a predominant motivating factor. He drew a parallel to the benign racial classifications of equal protection analysis, arguing that strict scrutiny should not apply when the state action (1) has neither the intent nor the effect of harming any particular group; (2) is designed to break down irrational prejudices rather than give effect to them; and (3) uses race as a classification because race is re...