The Equal Protection Clause is only violated when a law seeks to hurt a minority group in voting. 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. "One Person, One Vote" Cases 1. endobj The Attorney General did not object to the revised plan. How does racial gerrymandering go against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause? [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. Therefore, it should not apply to the White voters who brought this case. But it soon became apparent that guaranteeing equal access to the polls would not suffice to root out other racially discriminatory voting practices. "Shaw v. Reno: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact." Posted 5 years ago. 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." v. Reno, Attorney General, et al", "Shaw v. Reno [Shaw I] | Case Brief for Law Students", "Court Accepts a Crucial Redistricting Case", "From Shaw v. Reno to Miller v. Johnson: Minority Representation and State Compliance with the Voting Rights Act", "Shaw v. Reno and the Future of Voting Rights", "The History Of Redistricting In Georgia", Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. In addition, any affected American citizen that felt that they are being affected by the Voting Rights Act can file a lawsuit stating that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which led rise to the case. O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Justice O'Connor applied strict scrutiny which asks the court to determine whether a race-based classification is narrowly tailored, has a compelling government interest and offers the "least restrictive" means of achieving that governmental interest. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[81.0 617.094 129.672 629.106]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Many of these cases are controversial or were decided 5-4. Upon seeking approval, the U.S. Attorney General objected to the fact that North Carolina had only one majority-black district. In 1990, the Democratic-led North Carolina General Assembly redistricted the state and created one black majority district, District 1, and another majority-minority district, the now notorious District 12. Such approval would be forthcoming only if the plan did not jeopardize minority representation. Shaw v. Reno | Definition, Background, Majority Opinion, & Facts 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. 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. 84 0 obj 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. 52 U.S.C. observations and information about the discipline. 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. [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. District 12, shown here in pink, was an oddly-shaped district that followed a highway. Our focus is on appellants' claim that the State engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly was entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and redrew its congressional districts to account for the changes in population. research in colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad, one-fourth work More importantly, the voters in this case have not alleged any injury. However, the phrasing of irregularly drawn districts has left room for much interpretation, letting judges use their opinions rather than relying on Shaw. Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). The First District was somewhat hook-shaped, beginning in the northeastern part of the state and tapering down with fingerlike extensions almost to the South Carolina border. Since Georgia's General Assembly used race for its own sake and not other districting principles, their actions were rendered unconstitutional. North Carolinas 1990 census entitled the state to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. The racial gerrymander is one of those tools. At some points the district was no wider than Interstate 85, prompting one state legislator to remark that if "you drove down the interstate with both car doors open, you'd kill most of the people in the district." 0000006832 00000 n 0000008690 00000 n 83 0 obj Request Permissions, Published By: American Political Science Association. Spitzer, Elianna. what are the advantages and disadvantages of majority-minority districts? 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. XIV, 1 provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Shaw v. Reno (1993) The principle of "one person, one vote" was established by the Supreme Court in the 1960s. 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. 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. Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. [W]e believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. The shapes of the two districts in question were quite controversial. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. endobj !\@2d%$%4^$VNVmp8mbe_b;.h:\g}hmbdBLT%p71_mra` PS: Political Science and Politics is the Association's quarterly journal 0000006436 00000 n The courts also noted that based on the Voting Rights Act, race can be taken into account when redistricting plans are made, but it cannot be the sole factor when drawing a new district because that would violate the fourteenth amendment. 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. Drawing Democracy: North Carolina's Gerrymandering History PS: Political Science and Politics <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[123.813 154.941 292.338 163.95]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endstream LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS v.PERRY 66 0 obj Wesberry v. Sanders is a landmark case because it mandated that congressional districts throughout the country must be roughly equal in population. An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. North Carolina's 12th congressional district, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509, "Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after, Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview, "Shaw v. Reno: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact", "gerrymandering | Definition, Litigation, & Facts | Britannica", "What Is Gerrymandering? [7] Section 2 of this act opposes using discriminatory voting practices in the election process and that in itself prohibits gerrymandering based on race. Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact - ThoughtCo However, five White residents of North Carolina, opposed against the redrawing because of the oddly shaped district in which they also stated it violated their Equal Protection Rights. Republicans challenged the map in the Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno. 74 0 obj endobj The resulting district was strangely structured and did not follow reapportionment guidelines which highlighted the importance of compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions." In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. Shaw v. Reno (1993) (article) | Khan Academy 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. Plaintiffs in this case challenge the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 569 (1969) (emphasis added). 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).