The case of Shaw v. Reno is significant because it created limitations on racial gerrymandering. 4H-?JXeHxG% . The court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution as the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendment do not prohibit the use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. <<>> But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices. Republicans challenged the map in the Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno. In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts. AP US Government & Politics students should be thoroughly familiar with 15 Supreme Court Cases for the AP exam. evolved since its introduction in 1968 to include critical analyses of 0000004895 00000 n <<98D4E2AA91A4B2110A009004BAD0FF7F>]/Prev 216420>> Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 104 0 obj [10] This changed with the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed these racially discriminatory practices and required government supervision for states that had less than 50 percent of non-White citizens registered to vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1866: History and Impact, 5 Key Events in Affirmative Action History, Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact, Sex Discrimination and the U.S. Constitution, Civil Rights Legislation and Supreme Court Cases, Women's Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact. Justice OConnor noted that there are some rare circumstances where a law can appear racially neutral, but cannot be explained through anything but race; North Carolinas reapportionment plan fell into this category. These required cases tend to appear throughout the AP exam multiple choice. 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. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. The shapes of the two districts in question were quite controversial. The general assembly took another look at the maps and drew in a second majority-minority district in the north-central region of the state, along Interstate 85. Map of North Carolina showing voting districts. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. 83 0 obj Shaw v. Reno - 509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816 (1993) Rule: The Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. The Attorney General did not object to the revised plan. Justice O'Connor, on behalf of the majority, found that redistricting plans could take race into account in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but race could not be the sole or predominant factor when drawing a district. This case was unlike others since the Voting Right Act, because it now didn't hinder the redistricting and impediment of the minority groups. All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. A federal court upheld the plan as not violating the "one person one vote" principle nor violating the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court continues to hear cases about gerrymandering and racially motivated districts. 0000002203 00000 n <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[145.74 211.794 214.836 223.806]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 70 0 obj The white voters racial gerrymander claim is simply not of the same nature as one of a voter who has been historically discriminated against. The North Carolina General Assembly submitted the plan to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, but it was rejected by the US Department of Justice which was led by Attorney General Janet Reno. Much of the case law is devoted to the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote, but over the past 20 years, more and more of the case law has addressed the impermissible uses of race in redistricting. Therefore, if legislation is facially race-neutral but cannot rationally be understood as anything but a separation of voters by race without sufficient justification, then a challenge to that legislation under the Equal Protection Clause is valid and should survive a motion to dismiss. This was to designed to prevent any discrimination by race and North Carolina thought this plan was completely aligned with the request of the General Assembly guidelines. 80 0 obj In his written opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." Baker v. Carr (1961) Established the "one-person, one-vote" principle that districts should be proportionately represented in Congress. Assembly of Colorado, Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks, Houston Lawyers' Association v. Attorney General of Texas, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. trailer After population gains tracked by the 1990 census, North Carolina was able to get a 12 th Congressional seat for the state. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[81.0 97.3415 156.704 105.3495]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> She has also worked at the Superior Court of San Francisco's ACCESS Center. Justice Sandra Day OConnor delivered the 5-4 decision. %%EOF The district in question in this case is long and snaking, following along a highway. h0dp0d-?+X.ItHg'6Hx50W;{nJc2u$fPvc]r+T+r;O9K_,^|[ Y The VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups. Shaw v. Reno (1993) United States v. Lopez (1995) McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Why These Cases? Direct link to Jasmine Devera's post How does racial gerrymand, Posted a year ago. endstream 52 U.S.C. This is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy. Spitzer, Elianna. You will be asked to compare one of the required cases (for which no information will be provided) with a case that is presented to you on the exam. Direct link to varshikaravi212008's post what are the advantages a, Posted 3 years ago. A reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment." the political question and the role of the SCOTUS) gerrymandering (though this is secondary) "one man, one vote" Shaw v. Reno (1993) Used equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to Shaw v. Reno was an influential case and received backlash. Laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition. Classifications of citizens on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. The Justice Department under the George H.W. 0000003285 00000 n The racial gerrymander is one of those tools. We suggest making sure to create a study plan and set up your study space with a good environment. 75 0 obj "[15], 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. [1] After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a majority-minority Black district. [2], Justice Souter noted the arbitrary nature of the strict scrutiny applied in this case. 72 0 obj Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters--a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. Until today, the Court has analyzed equal protection claims involving race in electoral districting differently from equal protection claims involving other forms of governmental conduct, and before turning to the different regimes of analysis it will be useful to set out the relevant respects in which such districting differs from the characteristic circumstances in which a State might otherwise consciously consider race. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). A map showing Congressional districts in North Carolina between 1993 and 1998. 0000006041 00000 n ", "Gerrymandering Explained | Brennan Center for Justice", "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations", "Shaw v. Reno Case Summary: What You Need to Know", "United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey", "Ruth O. SHAW, et al., Appellants v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, et al", "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions", "Shaw et al. endobj endobj [6] Gerrymandering has come before the Supreme Court in multiple cases but in Shaw, racial gerrymandering refers to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 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. Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). It is simply not plausible for the white voters here to argue that the white majoritys influence over the political process has been canceled out. [25] Shaw also does not add or address the criteria needed for creating districts. Not only should you be familiar with the final decisions, you should be familiar with the reasons for the majority opinion and how they impacted American society. The US Department of Justice, led by Attorney General. 73 0 obj In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained except on the basis of race can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause, and in Miller v. Today we hold only that appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate voting districts because of their race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification.