Shaw v. Reno | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Can a state draw district lines to increase the voting power of a minority? The Supreme Court took up this question in the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno. Following the 1962 Baker v. Carr Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Supreme Court could hear cases on gerrymandering because of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment through the process of incorporation, Shaw v. Reno challenged the constitutionality of gerrymandering based on race. Check out our latest Homework Help video on this AP Government required Supreme Court case!
0:00 Can a state create a legislative district based on race? Whenever the drawing of electoral boundaries occurs, debates over fairness and representation occur. Often the accusation of gerrymandering or the manipulation of district lines to give increased power to a political party or class is brought up over fears that this
0:20 process will give some voters greater sway than others. Gerrymandering is generally accepted as constitutional, but in 1991, Supreme Court case took on the question of if a state’s creation of a racially gerrymander district raised a constitutional question under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
0:40 This is the story of Shaw v. Reno. Following the 1990 census, North Carolina’s legislature set out to redraw its political district line. At the time, the state’s racial demographic was 78% white, 20% black, and 2% other.
1:05 The legislature’s plan drew the line so that one of the twelve districts would have a black majority. However, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the US. Attorney General must review and approve new district lines in certain areas in order to ensure minority voters were not being discriminated against. Parts of North Carolina were included in this law at the time,
1:28 Janet Reno served as the Attorney General, and she rejected the proposal, arguing that two black-majority districts should be created. North Carolina developed a new plan to follow Reno’s order by creating two irregularly shaped blackmajority districts. One of them was as narrow as an interstate in certain parts and looped through the state to connect black majority neighborhoods.
1:49 Ruth Shaw and other white residents in North Carolina sued, arguing that the plan violated the equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment since the proposed district appeared so irrationally drawn that it could have only been created in an attempt to separate voters by race. Reno and her legal team countered that historical racial injustices justified the additional district.
2:12 A US. District court first heard the case and ruled that the racial gerrymandering plan did not raise any questions involving the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and thus dismissed Shaw’s suit. The case then went to the Supreme Court. Upon appeal. How would the court rule? Did North Carolina’s proposed district lines raise a valid complaint under the Due Process Clause?
2:34 In a f5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Shaw and the other residents of North Carolina. The majority ruled that race could not be the predominant reason for drawing district lines in a certain way. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, quote racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society.
2:55 They reinforced the belief held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions. It threatens to carry us further
3:16 from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters. It is for these reasons that racebased districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. However, not all of the justices agreed. Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his opinion that racial gerrymandering was acceptable if it was done in order to give
3:37 increased political strength to a minority group that is underrepresented. In his opinion, he argued, quote 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.
3:57 That duty, however, is not violated when the majority acts to facilitate the election of a member of a group that lacks such power because it remains underrepresented in the state legislature, whether that group is defined by political affiliation, by common economic interest, or by religious, ethnic or racial characteristics.
4:17 The case raised the debate over the proper means of ensuring that all Americans can express their consent as they vote for representatives in government while enjoying equal protection of the laws. Questions around gerrymandering and racial equality remain controversial to this day. Will there be another court case on racial gerrymandering?
4:38 This has been the story of Shaw v. Reno. Thanks for watching. Remember to like this video and for more videos from the Bill of Rights Institute subscribe down below.
