Direct link to Sahinj01's post It gave an advantage to t, Posted 3 years ago. [29] She noted that under the standard of "strict scrutiny", the districts were irregularly shaped and used race as a deciding factor. 80 0 obj Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Case Summary of Shaw v. Reno: 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. Ruth Shaw and four other white North Carolina voters filed suit against the U.S. attorney general and various North Carolina officials, claiming that race-based redistricting violated, among other provisions, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 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. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions [20] Then, the residents argued that the state had gone far this time by redrawing the district lines and creating a second district that was dominated by the minorities. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[510.324 617.094 549.0 629.106]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 0000007872 00000 n 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. endobj Then, go over each court case and quiz yourself on the details. [21], Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the creation of the second district was necessary in order to follow the request of the General Assembly that required them to abide by the Voting Right Act of 1965, which would increase the representation of the minority groups and allow them to have more of a voice when voting. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. The Equal Protection Clause is only violated when a law seeks to hurt a minority group in voting. Congress had amended the VRA in 1982 to target "vote dilution" in which members of a specific racial minority were spread thin across a district to decrease their ability to ever gain a voting majority. (2020, December 4). Gerrymandering occurs when one group or political party draws voting district boundaries in a way that gives a specific group of voters more power. endobj The result of Shaw led to a mixed reaction and, soon after, lawsuits were filed against majority-Black districts in some southern states such as Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana. The Court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. Did the questioned reapportionment (with the snakelike 12th district) provide an advantage to the minority groups or to the white voters? Direct link to Cameron Christensen's post I'm struggling with a phr, Posted 5 years ago. Bush administration rejected this plan on the grounds that it gave blacks insufficient congressional representation. Legislative districts that cannot be explained through any means other than race may be struck down in court. . Direct link to Declan Wilcoxon's post if someone is in a distri, Posted 2 days ago. It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. [27] While Shaw failed to set clear criteria for gerrymandering, Shaw impacted the future of voting rights.The significance of the Shaw v. Reno decision is heavily debated but it is known that it had a lasting impact on how the Voting Rights Act was going to be enforced and the structure of the U.S. political system. The district in question in this case is long and snaking, following along a highway. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. amend. Traditional civil rights groups--the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund--submitted amicus curiae briefs in favor of the minority districts, and groups with long histories of opposition to quota programs--Washington Legal Foundation and the American Jewish Congress--argued against them. "Highly irregular" districts are called into question but Shaw does not unpack what that means. HtSj@}edD J%VPJ" TQP*`?"7wX.@mg +yxRzVF!Pd(q>&90PA49n>&xj@!ii]P7iNFIk.%KDWpYD 8cmqJ%W2jiNUT*D[Gle/#Y0q~ Founded in 1903, the American Political Science Association is the major professional How would both views of the situation be similar. [22] It included that the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal government that allowed states to find any possible way to comply to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, even if it meant having a strangely structured district like this one which Reno argued against. 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 . 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. Only two years after Shaw v. Reno, the same five Supreme Court justices explicitly stated that racial gerrymandering violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause in Miller v. Johnson. [28], In the aftermath of the Shaw v. Reno decision, the Supreme Court reexamined the topic of racial gerrymandering in the other court cases. Now the claim was whether making a district based on race was racially adequate and fair for everyone. On one hand, using the shortest-split method would be completely unbiased and could prevent partisan and racial gerrymandering. 78 0 obj 79 0 obj Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. endobj <<98D4E2AA91A4B2110A009004BAD0FF7F>]/Prev 216420>> This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court has faced in recent years: the meaning of the constitutional "right" to vote, and the propriety of race-based state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups. Appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregular shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. AP Gov Final Exam .docx - 1. In 2010, for the first time in 0 Washington v. Davis(1976). 0000031101 00000 n This is altogether antithetical to our system of representative democracy. In a 1993 ruling, Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court first recognized a claim of racial gerrymandering, holding that the challengers to a redistricting plan had stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. [30], There have been controversies and misinterpretations associated with Shaw v. Reno. Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. Residents argued that the state had gone too far when redrawing district lines to create a second majority-minority district. He argued that drawing districts based on race in order to increase minority representation could serve an important government interest. Shaw v. Reno (1993) The principle of "one person, one vote" was established by the Supreme Court in the 1960s. Many of these cases are controversial or were decided 5-4. Direct link to varshikaravi212008's post what are the advantages a, Posted 3 years ago. On March 26, 1962, the Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr, finding that it had the power to review the redistricting of state legislative districts under the 14th Amendment. <>stream To help with your productivity, especially during the last few days before the exam, you should use a, New York Times Co v. United States (1971), Cases Involving the Equal Protection Clause, Cases Involving Districting & Representation. W(h)ither the Voting Rights Act After Shaw v. Reno alteration would apparently occur because whites in majority-minority districts would be "filler people," (quoting Aleinikoff and Issacharoff 1993, 631), not "expected to com-pete in any . 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 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. 83 0 obj Any government action that is solely based on race must be scrutinized under the Equal Protection Clause. It may be that the terms for pleading this cause of action will be met so rarely that this case will wind up an aberration. It is essential that you analyze these cases in depth so you are prepared for the AP Exam! 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. society for individuals engaged in the study of politics and government. JUSTICE WHITE WITH WHOM JUSTICE BLACKMUN AND JUSTICE STEVENS JOIN, DISSENTING. While not dispositive, "bizarrely shaped" districts are strongly indicative of racial intent." from the NCSL Shelby County v. Holder (2013) There are many discrepancies that each judge must take into account when using Shaw v. Reno as a precedent. We express no view as to whether appellants successfully could have challenged such a district under the Fourteenth Amendment. 104 0 obj 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. Did North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when it established a second majority-minority district through racial gerrymandering, in response to a request from the attorney general? In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right or benefit provided to others. Dist. 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. = kd41Ss!9Q !\@2d%$%4^$VNVmp8mbe_b;.h:\g}hmbdBLT%p71_mra` See, e.g.,Rogers v. Lodge(1982);White v. Regester(1973). Spitzer, Elianna.