explanation for its districting decision, and the voting population is one in which race and political affiliation are highly correlated. Finally, in reviewing the district court’s findings, the district court should only reverse the lower court’s decision if there was clear error; not merely a belief that the case should have been decided differently. The district court granted summary judgment after finding that the North Carolina legislature consciously chose to draw District 12 in a way that compressed African American voters into one voting area. The district court committed clear error in making this determination because the evidentiary record before it did not adequately point to this conclusion. The political affiliation of African Americans in District 12 correlates strongly with their race. When majority-minority districts are at issue and racial identification correlates highly with political affiliation, the party attacking the legislatively drawn boundaries must demonstrate at a minimum that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles. Additionally, the challenging party mustdemonstrate that those districting alternatives would achieve significantly greater racial balance. Cromartie failed to make any such showing. Therefore the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous.10.Dissent (Thomas, J.)11.The district court did not err in holding that the North Carolina legislature had sufficient factual evidence to conclude that District 12 was drawn solely on the basis of race. The district court’s conclusion is afactual finding. The United States Supreme Court is required to uphold findings of fact from the lower courts upon reviewing the case. It cannot find a district court’s holding clearly erroneous simply because it would have decided the case differently. The district court made its factual determinations based on documentary evidence and expert testimony. Such bases for factual determinations have never before justified “extensive review” in the Court’s jurisprudence.12.Strong presumption that districting is permiss even if clear race is major factor, challenger must demo race and not politics was predominant consideration. Requires showing that legis pol goals could have been achieved without consideration of race; difficult, allows much greater use of race in districting than ever before!iv.Race class whether ben or burden min must be subj to SS review: saw in case of AA. Court has SS approaproate and req regulation be nec to compelling st int and that it be narrowly drawn. Diversity is compelling st int, quota sys are not narrowly drawn enough but that indv factors can be.