What is Shaw v Reno and why does it matter?
Why does Shaw v. Reno matter? The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
What did the Supreme Court decide in the case of R v Reno?
Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.
Why did Shannon Shaw sue the federal government?
Shaw sued on the basis that the plan violated several constitutional principles, including the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal protection under law for all citizens, regardless of race. A district court dismissed the claims against the federal government and the state.
What does the Supreme Court say about racial redistricting?
The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Why was Shaw v Reno 1993 an important decision in terms of minority representation quizlet?
Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. What was argued? In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts.
What was the importance of Shaw v Reno?
Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 lead to the rise of the Shaw v. Reno court case which allowed for more representation of the Black (minority) representation in the state of North Carolina.
What were the significant facts of Shaw v Reno 1993 quizlet?
The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. -The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.
What case made racial gerrymandering illegal?
Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority-majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
What is the Supreme Court's decision in Shaw v. Reno?
The Supreme Court held that when a Congressional reapportionment plan is “so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race" courts must view that plan under strict scrutiny.
What is strict scrutiny in Shaw v Reno?
Reno. Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts often use when analyzing an Equal Protection claim. Under this review, the government must show it had a “compelling governmental interest" in passing the law and that it was “narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's goal in the least restrictive way possible. It's the highest standard of review courts use. While not every law that receives strict scrutiny is unconstitutional, it makes it a much more difficult case for the government.
What is the Reno case?
Reno Case Summary: What You Need to Know. Legal battles over gerrymandering and redistricting have been routine since the Voting Rights Act was first passed in 1965. As political parties have gotten better at using data for redistricting, the practice has become both a science and an art – and a point of contention.
Why was the second district rejected?
The Attorney General felt that a second district was needed to better represent the Native American population in the state, among other concerns.
How many congressional seats did North Carolina have in 1990?
After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. The State Assembly wanted this 12 th seat to be a majority-minority district. North Carolina redrew the Congressional districts twice.
When was the Voting Rights Act passed?
The Voting Rights Act, passed into law in 1965, prohibited many of the voter suppression tactics that predominated in the South at the time. After it became law, redistricting had to comply with the VRA.
Does Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act apply to redrawing districts?
Holder held that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act no longer applies, so states seeking to redraw Congressional districts were free to undertake reapportionment plans without needing to submit it to the Attorney General for review.
Why is Shaw v Reno important?
Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. Specifically, it signals a pulling away from using the Equal Protection Clause to benefit black Americans, and rather provides some fodder for those who want to claim that laws benefiting black Americans in particular constitute “ reverse discrimination .” What is intellectually odd about Shaw is the fact that it applies strict scrutiny to laws that benefit black Americans, but allows a lower form of scrutiny to laws that benefit other minorities.
What is the rule of law for reapportionment?
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: If a reapportionment plan creates a district that is so irregular that the only reason for its creation is to separate voters based on race, then an Equal Protection challenge against that plan is valid.
Why did North Carolina create a second black district?
The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney General’s objection that it had only one majority-black congressional district, created a second majority-black district. Five white North Carolina voters sued, alleging that the State’s reapportionment plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
What was the result of the 1990 Census?
As a result of the 1990 Census, North Carolina was entitled to a 12 th seat in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the State devised a redistricting plan that created one majority-black district. Under the Voting Rights Act, the State had to get approval for any congressional redistricting plan. Upon seeking approval, the U.S. Attorney General objected to the fact that North Carolina had only one majority-black district.
Did North Carolina have a majority black district?
Under the Voting Rights Act, the State had to get approval for any congressional redistricting plan. Upon seeking approval, the U.S. Attorney General objected to the fact that North Carolina had only one majority-black district. Therefore, North Carolina created a plan that resulted in two majority-black districts.
Did the Attorney General object to the revised plan?
The Attorney General did not object to the revised plan. However, five white North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit against federal and state officials. They alleged that the district lines were so dramatically irregular that they constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Does redistricting benefit minority groups?
The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group. 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.
What was the case of the black majority in North Carolina?
The case involved the redistricting of North Carolina after the 1990 census. North Carolina submitted to the Department of Justice a map with one majority-minority black district —that is, a district with a black majority. The Department of Justice believed that the state could have drawn another such majority-minority district in order ...
What did George Henry White say about the North Carolina case?
(1) That the case was brought by white voters challenging the district. Its boundaries had enabled the district's majority of black voters to elect the majority-white state's first black representatives to Congress since 1898, when George Henry White was re-elected to his second term in Congress from North Carolina's 2nd congressional district. (In 1899, after North Carolina Democrats passed a new state constitution to disenfranchise blacks, White chose not to seek a third term in Congress. He told the Chicago Tribune, "I cannot live in North Carolina and be a man and be treated as a man." He moved to Washington, D.C.)
What case did the Supreme Court dismiss?
A federal District Court dismissed a lawsuit by some North Carolina voters on the grounds that they had no claim for relief under a standard set by a previous Supreme Court case, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey .
What case was 5-4?
For instance, Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), which concerned a similarly irregular district in Georgia, was also decided 5-4, with the majority comprising exactly the same five justices as in Shaw .
What is the holding of redistricting?
Holding. Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Court membership. Chief Justice.
What is the standard of strict scrutiny for racial redistricting?
The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
What did the white people in North Carolina say about the new congressional district map?
The group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why did the NC General Assembly redrew its congressional districts?
After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. Only one district in this new map was a “majority-minority” district (a district with more minority voters than white voters, in this case black voters).
Who sued the 2nd district of North Carolina?
Source: Wikimedia Commons. After the General Assembly passed legislation creating the second district, a group of white voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional. gerrymander.
Who rejected the North Carolina district plan?
The US Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Janet Reno, rejected North Carolina’s district plan, instructing the state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with recent amendments to the. Voting Rights Act. .
Can race be a factor in drawing a district?
Although district plans may take racial considerations into account, and must meet the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts.
Most popular
Join the other students who are using our most popular study sets to master what they are learning.
Newly added
Our most recent study sets focusing on Congressional District Map will help you get ahead by allowing you to study whenever you want, wherever you are.
Facts of The Case
Arguments
Constitutional Issues
- Did North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendmentwhen it established a second majority-minority district through racial gerrymandering, in response to a request from the attorney general?
Majority Opinion
- Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the 5-4 decision. Legislation that classifies a person or group of people solely based on their race is, by its nature, a threat to a system that strives to achieve equality, the majority opined. Justice O’Connor noted that there are some rare circumstances where a law can appear racially neutral, but cannot be explained through anythin…
Dissenting Opinion
- In his dissent, Justice White argued that the Court had ignored the importance of showing "cognizable harm," also known as proof that any sort of "harm" had even occurred. In order for White voters in North Carolina to even file suit against the state and federal government, they had to have been harmed. The White North Carolina voters could not show that they were disenfranc…
Impact
- Under Shaw v. Reno, redistricting can be held to the same legal standard as laws that explicitly classify by race. Legislative districts that cannot be explained through any means other than race may be struck down in court. The Supreme Court continues to hear cases about gerrymandering and racially motivated districts. Only two years after Shaw v....
Sources
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).