Justice Souter noted that the Court seemed to be suddenly applying strict scrutiny to a law that aimed to increase representation amongst a historically discriminated group. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. H1n0Ew'`/8'e-9,>HX^c!+ On one hand, using the shortest-split method would be completely unbiased and could prevent partisan and racial gerrymandering. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. Under Shaw v. Reno, redistricting can be held to the same legal standard as laws that explicitly classify by race. In Miller v. Johnson, Georgia's racial gerrymandering was questioned to violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it aimed to create a majority-Black district. 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. Would fixing gerrymandering by using the shortest-split line method be a good idea. With a 7-1 decision the court ruled in favor of Carey, the respondent. [28], In the aftermath of the Shaw v. Reno decision, the Supreme Court reexamined the topic of racial gerrymandering in the other court cases. 0000002471 00000 n SHAW v. RENO(1993) No. Politicians have always relied on assumptions that people in particular groups are likely to vote in a particular way when they draw new district lines, and I cannot believe that anything in today's opinion will stop them from doing so in the future. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(1977). 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. Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by adilutionof voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot." Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reno. Therefore, such redistricting was held unconstitutional since it found intention to segregate voters by race and this segregation cannot be justified under a standard of strict scrutiny. 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. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged probable jurisdiction. Racial Gerrymanding and the 14th Amendment, Wikimedia Commons / United States Department of the Interior. Shaw v. Reno - 509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816 (1993) Rule: The Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. They alleged that the district lines were so dramatically irregular that they constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 0000001525 00000 n <> Since there is no justification for the departure here from the principles that continue to govern electoral districting cases generally in accordance with our prior decisions, I would not respond to the seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now before us by untethering the concept of racial gerrymander in such a case from the concept of harm exemplified by dilution. The racial gerrymander is one of those tools. research in colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad, one-fourth work Residents argued that the state had gone too far when redrawing district lines to create a second majority-minority district. <>stream The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney Generals, Five white North Carolina voters sued, alleging that the States, The District Court dismissed the suit, finding that race-based districting is not prohibited by the, The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the case should not have been dismissed because the voters made a valid claim under the. This outlook has the potential to disenfranchise minorities, as courts may place more importance on the shape of the district, rather than the underrepresented people.[31]. Shaw v. Reno (1993) " Legislative and congressional districts will be struck down by courts for violating the Equal Protection Clause if they cannot be explained on grounds other than race. Unlike other contexts in which we have addressed the State's conscious use of race, see, e.g.,Richmond v. J.A. PS: Political Science and Politics XIV, 1 provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The resulting district was strangely structured and did not follow reapportionment guidelines which highlighted the importance of compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions." Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. In this unanimous decision, it was decided that districts did indeed dilute Black votes and therefore did violate the Voting Rights Act. Direct link to megamanwhiz's post On one hand, using the sh, Posted 3 years ago. In this case, the Attorney General suggested that North Carolina could have created a reasonably compact second majority-minority district in the south-central to southeastern part of the State. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. 0000031101 00000 n [25] Shaw also does not add or address the criteria needed for creating districts. alter the basic ground rules of 'one person, one vote'." This alleged . In Reynold v. Sims, the phrase people, not trees of pastures, vote can be applied to Shaw, as people, not highways, vote. = kd41Ss!9Q Of particular relevance, five of the Justices reasoned that members of the white majority could not plausibly argue that their influence over the political process had been unfairly canceled (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST and STEVENS, J.J.), or that such had been the State's intent (STEWART, J., POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). 0000006436 00000 n The general assembly submitted the plan to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. Shaw v. Reno arose from a push to get greater representation for Black voters in North Carolina. The District Court, on remand, must determine whether there is racial gerrymandering, and if so, determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina gained one congressional seat, increasing its House membership to twelve and requiring the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the claim against the state. The Attorney General did not object to the revised plan. Many of these cases are controversial or were decided 5-4. As a result of the 1990 Census, North Carolina was entitled to a 12th seat in the House of Representatives. Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that " [t]he right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot." 641 *641 Allen v. State Bd. The shape of the district at issue in this case is indeed so bizarre that few other examples are ever likely to carry the unequivocal implication of impermissible use of race that the Court finds here. <>stream It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged. There is thus no theoretical inconsistency in having two distinct approaches to equal protection analysis, one for cases of electoral districting and one for most other types of state governmental decisions. These cases will help you further enhance your knowledge of the AP Government curriculum. endobj Shaw v. Reno places a lot of importance on the actual lines drawn, rather than who they contain. The constitutional provision central to the landmark case of Shaw v. Reno is the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In the ensuing case, Gill v. What appellants object to is redistricting legislation that is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification. They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately "create[d] two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was concentrated arbitrarily--without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions" with the purpose "to create Congressional Districts along racial lines" and to assure the election of two black representatives to Congress. "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society."Reynolds v. Sims[1964]. Star Athletica, L.L.C. These required cases tend to appear throughout the AP exam multiple choice. society for individuals engaged in the study of politics and government. The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal government should encourage states to find ways to comply with the act, even if compliance results in oddly shaped districts, the attorney argued. Almost thirty years later, the Supreme Court's decision in Shaw v. Reno3 focuses again on the Many of these cases are controversial or were decided 5-4. This amendment ensured the voting rights of African Americans. The Court today chooses not to overrule, but rather to sidestep,UJO. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. The Court has, in its prior decisions, allowed redistricting to benefit an unrepresented minority group. (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 addition to being unclear, Shaw has the ability to disenfranchise minorities. "Shaw v. Reno: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact." The Equal Protection Clause should only be used to protect those who have been discriminated against in the past, they wrote. It is ironic that it does so when white voters challenge a law that would have North Carolina send a black representative to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction. 0000035716 00000 n 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.
Anderson University Head Football Coach,
Ford Godzilla Crate Engine Control Pack,
Mukilteo School District Human Resources,
Taking A Bath Without Sleep Can Cause Death,
Articles S
French 
English