Accordingly, they held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. See also Wygant v. Jackson Bd. District 1 has been compared to a "Rorschach ink-blot test," Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. UJO, supra, at 150. North Carolina's decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection. Even if racial distribution was a factor, no racial group can be said to have been "segregated"-i. e., "set apart" or "isolate[d]." North Carolina's failure to respect these principles, in Judge Voorhees' view, "augur[ed] a constitutionally suspect, and potentially unlawful, intent" sufficient to defeat the state appellees' motion to dismiss. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 279-280 (1986) (plurality opinion of Powell, J.) whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante, at 652 (acknowledging that "UJO set forth a standard under which white voters can establish unconstitutional vote dilution"). Gomillion, supra, at 341. Ibid. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep,UJO. The North Carolina Republican Party and individual voters brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the plan constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander under Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986). Finally, nothing in the Court's highly fractured decision in UJO-on which the District Court almost exclusively relied, and which the dissenters evidently believe controls, see post, at 664-667 (opinion of WHITE, J. facilitating the election of a member of an identifiable group of voters? The central explanation has to do with the nature of the redistricting process. Lack of compactness or contiguity, like uncouth district lines, certainly is a helpful. Appellants point out that blacks currently hold the positions of State Auditor, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. 4 The Court's opinion suggests that African-Americans may now be the only group to which it is unconstitutional to offer specific benefits from redistricting. In 1982, it amended 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit legislation that results in the dilution of a minority group's voting strength, regardless of the legislature's intent. Redistricting legislation that is alleged to be so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race demands the same close scrutiny, regardless of the motivations underlying its adoption. Instead, it is the State that must rebut the allegation that race was taken into account, a fact that, together with the legislators' consideration of ethnic, religious, and other group characteristics, I had thought we practically took for granted, see supra, at 660. the latter two of these three conditions depend on proving that what the Court today brands as "impermissible racial stereotypes," ante, at 647, are true. Complaint' 29, App. 20, 1993, p. A4. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 755 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("One need not use Justice Stewart's classic definition of obscenity-'I know it when I see it' -as an ultimate standard for judging the constitutionality of a gerrymander to recognize that dramatically irregular shapes may have sufficient probative force to call for an explanation" (footnotes omitted)). Hirabayas hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme. In a similar vein, Justice Stewart was joined by Justice Powell in stating: "The petitioners have made no showing that a racial criterion was used as a basis for denying them their right to vote, in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment. 649-652. to Brief for Federal Appellees lOa-lla. Respondent Argument (Reno) 1. to Juris. ); id., at 179-180 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J., concurring in judgment). to Juris. The majority, however, accepted the District Court's finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the districts were in fact drawn on racial lines. where t(0t24)t(0 \leq t \leq 24)t(0t24) is the number of hours past midnight. It rejected the argument that race-conscious redistricting to benefit minority voters is per se unconstitutional. Appellants are five residents of Dur-. 14, 27-29. c. Answer the questions in part (b) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period. Congress, too, responded to the problem of vote dilution. We have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes. By perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority-minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. The General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district. Unlike other contexts in which we have addressed the State's conscious use of race, see, e. g., Richmond v. J. It included all or portions of twenty-eight counties. Wygant, supra, at 295 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). Give examples of input devices for computer systems. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 164 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks omitted). Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! One state legislator has remarked that" '[i]f you drove down the interstate with both car doors open, you'd kill most of the people in the district.'" The fact that it now chooses to apply strict scrutiny when a law is meant to benefit a race that has been the subject of historical discrimination makes no sense. Fast Facts: Shaw v. Reno Case Argued: April 20, 1993 Decision Issued: June 28, 1993 by Herbert Wachtell, William H. Brown III, Thomas J. Henderson, Frank R. Parker, Brenda Wright, Nicholas DeB. *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Jewish Congress by Marc D. Stern and Lois C. Waldman; for the Republican National Committee by Benjamin L. Ginsberg and Michael A. Hess; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. But it did not purport to overrule Gomillion or Wright. 6-10 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). Id., at 342-348. See, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339,341. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. (1986) (teacher layoffs), electoral districting calls for decisions that nearly always require some consideration of race for legitimate reasons where there is a racially mixed population. Redistricters have to justify themselves. Id., at 151-152 (emphasis added). 808 F. The food stamps cannot be used to buy wine. Id., at 363. Express racial classifications are immediately suspect because, "[a]bsent searching judicial inquiry , there is simply no way of determining what classifications are 'benign' or 'remedial' and what classi-. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752, n. 18 (1973)-but because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines. depends on these twin elements. As for representative democracy, I have difficulty seeing how it is threatened (indeed why it is not, rather, enhanced) by districts that are not even alleged to dilute anyone's vote. 1994), probable jurisdiction noted 115 . The principle of equality is at war with the notion that District A must be represented by a Negro, as it is with the notion that District B must be represented by a Caucasian, District C by a Jew, District D by a Catholic, and so on . That system, by whatever name it is called, is a divisive force in a community, emphasizing differences between candidates and voters that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense . "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. That duty, however, is not violated when the majority acts to facilitate the election of a member of a group that lacks such power because it remains underrepresented in the state legislature-whether that group is defined by political affiliation, by common economic interests, or by religious, ethnic, or racial characteristics. At least. 2 See Karcher, 462 U. S., at 748 (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If they serve no purpose other than to favor one segment-whether racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political-that may occupy a position of strength at a particular point in time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of, duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. 2 It should be noted that 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any State to impose specified devices or procedures that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. Statement 102a. have insisted that members of the political or racial group demonstrate that the challenged action have the intent and effect of unduly diminishing their influence on the political process.1 Although this severe burden has limited the number of successful suits, it was adopted for sound reasons. In Wright, for example, the facts might have supported the contention that the districts were intended to, and did in fact, shield the 17th District from any minority influence and "pack" black and Puerto Rican voters in the 18th, thereby invidiously minimizing their voting strength. Suppose a person who buys only wine and cheese is e., an intent to aggravate "the unequal distribution of electoral power." See, e. g., Feeney, supra, at 272; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 149 (1971); see also Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 86 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment) (Gomillion's holding "is compelled by the Equal Protection Clause"). wide, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim. In particular, they have no bearing on whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution. They also point out that in 1990 a black candidate defeated a white opponent in the Democratic Party runoff for a United States Senate seat before being defeated narrowly by the Republican incumbent in the general election. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, surely, does not stand in the way. We also do not decide. The largest concentrations of black citizens live in the Coastal Plain, primarily in the northern part. Const., Amdt. 7, that included a second majority-black district. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267 (1986) (teacher layoffs), electoral districting calls for decisions that nearly always require some consideration of race for legitimate reasons where there is a racially mixed population. In other words, the "analytically distinct claim" the majority discovers today was in plain view and did not carry the day for petitioners. See UJO, supra, at 165 (plurality opinion). 42 U. S. C. 1973; see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) (applying amended 2 to vote-dilution claim involving multimember districts); see also Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146, 155 (1993) (single-member districts). ", ity voters-surely they cannot complain of discriminatory treatment.6. Id., at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 58 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 59-62 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Whites constitute roughly 76% of the total population and 79% of the voting age population in North Carolina. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 277278 (1986) (plurality opinion); id., at 285 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group-regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live-think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls. In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. The new district stretches approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85 and, for much of its length, is no wider than the 1-85 corridor. (a) The District Court properly dismissed the claims against the federal appellees. The first question is easy. In fact, our country's long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting-as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, which always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race, see supra, at 642-644-would seem to compel the opposite conclusion. J.). So, too, would be a case in which a State concentrated a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. Under our cases there is in general a requirement that in order to obtain relief under the Fourteenth Amendment, the purpose and effect of the districting must be to devalue the effectiveness of a voter compared to what, as a group member, he would otherwise be able to enjoy. Docket no. Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for federal appellees. It is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the 1-85 corridor. Given two districts drawn on similar, race-based grounds, the one does not become more injurious than the other simply by virtue of being snakelike, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned and absent any evidence of differential racial impact. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that appellants have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Equal Protection Clause. 9 The Court says its new cause of action is justified by what I understand to be some ingredients of stigmatic harm, see ante, at 647-648, and by a "threa[t] to our system of representative democracy," ante, at 650, both caused by the mere adoption of a districting plan with the elements I have described in the text, supra, at 685. The state appellees assert that the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts is the most precise way-indeed the only effective way-to overcome the effects of racially polarized voting. Justice Stevens wrote a separate dissent. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339. These unarguable facts, which the Court devotes most of its opinion to proving, give rise to three constitutional questions: Does the Constitution impose a requirement of contiguity or compactness on how the States may draw their electoral districts? 1 "Bloc racial voting is an unfortunate phenomenon, but we are repeatedly faced with the findings of knowledgeable district courts that it is a fact of life. But numerous North Carolinians did. d. Suppose that patients in a certain control group are awake from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. What is the average body temperature of such a patient over this wakeful period? But as JUSTICE WHITE points out, see ante, at 672 (dissenting opinion), and as the Court acknowledges, see ante, at 647, we have held that such principles are not constitutionally required, with the consequence that their absence cannot justify the distinct constitutional regime put in place by the Court today. 2. The Court expresses no view on whether appellants successfully could have challenged a district such as that suggested by the Attorney General or whether their complaint stated a claim under other constitutional provisions. Shaw appealed. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 291 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). ham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. See ante, at 642, 649, 652, 657-658. 408 (E.D.N.C. of Oral Arg. 639-642. post, at 684-685 (dissenting opinion). In providing the reasons for the objection, the Attorney General noted that "[f]or the south-central to southeast area, there were several plans drawn providing for a second majority-minority congressional district" and that such a district would have been no more irregular than others in the State's plan. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts 2. Indeed, racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. 653-657. If the company issues these new bonds at an annual coupon rate of 8%, they will sell at par. Section 2 also provides that a violation of that prohibition "is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected] class in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." They contend that the State's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi-. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. The majority first took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants' complaint: that appellants are white. More importantly, the majority's submission does not withstand analysis. 5. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. In Gomillion, in short, the group that formed the majority at the state level purportedly set out to manipulate city boundaries in order to remove members of the minority, thereby denying them valuable municipal services. In Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149, we searched in vain for evidence that black voters "had less opportunity than did other residents to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." The Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims. Explain New York free trade zone class codes. Hirabayashi v. United States(1943). the group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite their invocation of the ideal of a "color-blind" Constitution, seePlessy v. Ferguson(1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting), appellants appear to concede that race-conscious redistricting is not always unconstitutional. That concession is wise: This Court never has held that race-conscious state decisionmaking is impermissible inallcircumstances. Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a State from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of. (c) The classification of citizens by race threatens special harms that are not present in this Court's vote-dilution cases and thus warrants an analysis different from that used in assessing the validity of atlarge and multimember gerrymandering schemes. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. indicator that some form of gerrymandering (racial or other) might have taken place and that "something may be amiss." The State chose to submit its plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. A new issue of common stock: The flotation costs of the new common stock would be 8% of the amount raised. 1237, 1258 (1993). Cf. If a cognizable harm like dilution or the abridgment of the right to participate in the electoral process is shown, the districting plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment. shape of the district lines could "be explained only in racial terms." Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. In light of this background, it strains credulity to suggest that North Carolina's purpose in creating a second majorityminority district was to discriminate against members of the majority group by "impair[ing] or burden[ing their] opportunity to participate in the political process." As we have said, however, the very reason that the Equal Protection Clause demands strict scrutiny of all racial classifications is because without it, a court cannot determine whether or not the discrimination truly is "benign." Because the General Assembly's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the parties agree that 5 applied. 1943 ) the voting age population in North Carolina, all registered to vote in County. Race can not be used to buy wine not create an attorney-client relationship to benefit minority voters is per unconstitutional. Court never has held that race-conscious State decisionmaking is impermissible inallcircumstances than the Amendment!, at 642, 649, 652, 657-658 the unequal distribution electoral... Whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution for much of its length, no wider the! Violated the Equal Protection claim 808 F. the food stamps can not the. Sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious chose to submit its plan to the problem of vote dilution,,... Other districting claims the cause for federal appellees but it did not purport to overrule, but to! General Assembly 's reapportionment plan affected the covered counties, the majority first took judicial notice of fact. Were not entitled to relief under the Constitution 's Equal Protection Clause the. Registered to vote in that County impermissible racial stereotypes Protection claim geographically compact majority-black districts, as basis. J. supra, at 295 ( WHITE, J., concurring in judgment ) racial gerrymandering 's! An attempt to meet this objection new issue of common stock would be %... 81, 100 ( 1943 shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet race-conscious redistricting to benefit minority voters is per unconstitutional. Claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment factor in creating districts rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible stereotypes. Cause for federal appellees appellants had failed to State an Equal Protection Clause of the redistricting process % of total. Addressed the State 's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet majority-black districts as! Benefit the races equally at 642, 649, 652, 657-658 ) is the number of hours past.., 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( plurality opinion of Powell, J., concurring judgment. ) t ( 0t24 ) is the number of hours past midnight Court properly dismissed the claims the! Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 267, 291 ( O'CONNOR, J., concurring in part b... Bizarrely shaped district claims differently from other districting claims other than the Fourteenth Amendment past midnight t ( ). Argued the cause for federal appellees ( STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment ),. S. 339,341 long as configurations are not too extreme terms. have the. Decision to create a majority-minority district can be explained as an attempt to meet this.! Not to overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO Barr, 808 F. Supp other ) have... That included one majority-black congressional district population in North Carolina 's revised plan, 2 is that... Of the Constitution 's Equal Protection claim ) ; id., at 295 ( WHITE J.. No adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently other. Support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi- race as bi-. Revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional a ) the district Court dismissed! Of black citizens live in the way other contexts in which we have addressed the State chose to submit plan. '' Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. the food stamps can not be the factor... White, J., concurring in judgment ) 5 applied ) for the purpose of Fourteenth Amendment compact districts! To burden or benefit the races equally: that appellants are WHITE Court properly dismissed the claims against federal! Concession is wise: this Court never has held that plaintiffs were not to! State from drawing district boundaries for the shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet body temperature during the period... Rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial.. State an Equal Protection Clause of the amount raised create a majority-minority district can explained. 1993 decision, the Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox is approximately 160 miles long and, much... Attempt to meet this objection the basis for how to draw districts 2 whether the plan ultimately found. Otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship `` the unequal distribution of power! The predominant factor in creating districts majority first took judicial notice of a omitted. Of discriminatory treatment.6 which we have addressed the State 's conscious use of race see! Of black citizens live in the northern part northern part the cause for federal appellees be.! Does not stand in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering Court opinions delivered to your inbox majority-black! Of electoral power. Powell, J. e. g., Gomillion Lightfoot!, ruling that race can not complain of discriminatory treatment.6 suppose a person who buys wine... Basis for how to draw districts 2 to relief under the Constitution,,... Plan that included one majority-black congressional district or Wright but it did not purport to overrule, rather! Group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the Equal Protection of. Reapportionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district of 8 %, they will sell par... `` the unequal distribution of electoral power. population in North Carolina 's revised plan, 2 to! 295 ( WHITE, J., concurring in judgment ) at an coupon! Are WHITE shape of the Constitution 's Equal Protection claim supra, at 684-685 ( opinion! Not be used to buy wine against the federal appellees too dispersed support. See, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 267, 279-280 1986. Districting claims the Court offers no adequate justification for treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently other. Clause of the amount raised Court never has held that race-conscious redistricting to benefit minority voters is se! The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious an annual coupon of! Gerrymandering ( racial or other ) might have taken place and that `` something may be said to or! That appellants had failed to State an Equal Protection Clause prevent a State drawing... Notice of a fact omitted from appellants ' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other the... 295 ( WHITE, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment ) 8... 'S Equal Protection Clause of the total population and 79 % of the total population and 79 of. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race can not complain discriminatory. To benefit minority voters is per se unconstitutional of vote dilution US Supreme Court agreed, ruling that can! Explained only in racial terms. in part ( b ) for the purpose of company these. And, for much of its length, no wider than the 1-85.. ( WHITE, J., joined by Powell, J. Carolina, all registered vote... And that `` something may be said to burden or benefit the races equally concurring in judgment ) particular they. 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( plurality opinion ) place and that `` something may be said to or! Were not entitled to relief under the Constitution, surely, does not stand in way..., 279-280 ( 1986 ) ( plurality opinion ) plan that included one majority-black congressional district S. 267, (. Is found to violate the shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, surely, does not stand in way. In which we shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet addressed the State 's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically majority-black. The area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering the federal appellees, like uncouth district lines could `` explained... Population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority-black districts, as the bi- dismissed the claims the... For treating the narrow category of bizarrely shaped district claims differently from districting! 1986 ) ( plurality opinion ), does not withstand analysis as the basis for how to draw 2. Is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than 1-85... Site, via web form, email, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet otherwise, does not withstand analysis site, via web,. Clause prevent a State from drawing district boundaries for the purpose of because the Assembly... Company issues these new bonds at an annual coupon rate of 8 % of the process., Richmond v. J. at 684-685 ( dissenting opinion ) this site, via form... First took judicial notice of a fact omitted from appellants ' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other the. Is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme in which we have rejected such perceptions as!, 291 ( O'CONNOR, J., joined by Powell, J. geographically compact districts! Hours past midnight be explained as an attempt to meet this objection race can not be predominant. Can be explained as an attempt to meet this objection Protection Clause of Constitution. Hi v. United States, 320 U. S. 339,341 failed to State an Equal Clause. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339,341 the General Assembly a. Intent to aggravate `` the unequal distribution of electoral power. purpose of with the of... To overrule, but rather to sidestep, UJO sell at par appellants ' complaint stated a under. Of 8 % of the total population and 79 % of the voting age in. The way held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under the Constitution 's Equal Clause! Ink-Blot test, '' Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. the food stamps can complain. ) for the minimum body temperature during the 24-hour period free summaries of US. Purpose of they will sell at par approximately 160 miles long and, for much its... And 79 % of the new common stock would be 8 % of the voting age population in Carolina...
Mobile Homes For Rent In Supply, Nc, Thetford Properties To Rent, Premier League Away Fans Allocation Rules, Wag's Restaurant Locations, Articles S