Back to the Supreme Court Cases Inquiry Learning Page

Constitutional Connection

14th Amendment

Voting Rights Act

Shaw v. Reno (1993) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering.

Key Facts

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.

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district which they argued was a racial gerrymander that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Big Question

Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Holding

5-4 Yes. The Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. 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.

Impact of case

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. 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.

Connections

The Supreme Court continues to hear cases about gerrymandering and racially motivated districts. 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 (1995). Recent gerrymandering cases have included Gill v. Whitford (2018) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).

Critical Questions

1. What does the Voting Rights Act say?

2. What is gerrymandering and what is racial gerrymandering?

3. How is racial gerrymandering different from partisan gerrymandering?

4. What does the 14th amendment say about equality?

5. Why did the majority of SCOTUS side with Shaw?

6. Had you been on SCOTUS how would you have voted on this case?

7. Does Shaw v. Reno outlaw racial gerrymandering?

8. Based on the ruling in Shaw v. Reno, list the rules regarding racial gerrymandering:

9. Arnold Swartzeneger says that in our system the politicians chose the voters instead of the votes choosing the politician. What does that mean?

Resources

Oyez - Shaw v. Reno

Back to the Supreme Court Cases Inquiry Learning Page