Shaw v. Reno
| Shaw v. Reno | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||
| Argued April 20, 1993 Decided June 28, 1993 | ||||||
| Full case name | Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General et al. | |||||
| Citations |
509 U.S. 630 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2816; 125 L. Ed. 2d 511; 61 U.S.L.W. 4818; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4406 | |||||
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 808 F.Supp. 461 | |||||
| Subsequent history | 808 F.Supp. 461, reversed and remanded. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
| ||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Blackmun | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Souter | |||||
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. 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. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno.
Decision
Factual background and majority opinion
.gif)
The case involved the redistricting of North Carolina after the 1990 census. North Carolina submitted to the Department of Justice a map with one majority-minority black district—that is, a district with a black majority. The Department of Justice believed that the state could have drawn another such majority-minority district to improve representation of black voters. The state revised its map, but the new plan had only one majority-minority district: it was 160 miles (260 km) long, winding through the state to connect various areas having in common only a large black population. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the shape of the new district as "bizarre." The court found that if a redistricting map is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," it must be held to the standard of strict scrutiny.
Dissents
The dissenters noted (1) that the case was brought by white voters challenging the district. Its boundaries had enabled the district's majority of black voters to elect the first black representatives to Congress since Reconstruction, as the state was majority white; (2) that the holding citing the 14th Amendment perversely made redistricting that advantaged blacks subject to more rigorous scrutiny than redistricting advantaging other non-racial groups, though the impetus of the 14th was to provide for equal protection for blacks, and; (3) that allowing race-based voting blocs is distinct from other forms of affirmative action, insofar as allowing race-based blocs does not deny another person her rights and privileges, as for example, race-based hiring and retention practices do.
Impact
Subsequent decisions on similar issues have made use of Shaw and refined it, though the four dissenters have held fast in their belief that no cause of action exists. For instance, Miller v. Johnson, which concerned a similarly irregular district in Georgia, was also decided 5-4, with the majority comprising exactly the same five justices as in Shaw.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
- Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52 (1964)
Further reading
- Aleinikoff, T. Alexander; Issacharoff, Samuel (1993). "Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after Shaw v. Reno". Michigan Law Review (Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 3) 92 (3): 588–651. doi:10.2307/1289796. ISSN 0026-2234. JSTOR 1289796.
- Blumstein, James F. (1994). "Racial Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution: Shaw v. Reno in Doctrinal Context". Rutgers Law Journal 26: 517. ISSN 0277-318X.
- Parker, Frank R. (1995). "Shaw v. Reno: A Constitutional Setback for Minority Representation". PS: Political Science and Politics (PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 1) 28 (1): 47–50. doi:10.2307/420580. JSTOR 420580.