Shaw v. Reno Supreme Court Case

Petitioner Argument(Shaw)

1. Constitution prohibits using race as the basis for how to draw districts 2. The plan amounts to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race 3.District 12 is not compact or contiguous which are criteria for district maps 4. Drawing districts on basis of race advances the stereotype that each race will vote for their own candidate

Respondent Argument(Reno)

1. Race in redistricting is permissible as long as configurations are not too extreme 2. Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters

Case Name (Shaw v. Reno)

Shaw v. Reno

Importance of Ruling (Shaw v. Reno)

Significant changes in the area of redistricting and gerrymandering

Facts of the Case (Shaw v. Reno)

1. US attorney general rejected a North Carolina congressional reappointment plan because the plan created only one black majority district 2. NC proposed a second plan where there would be 2 districts but one was way smaller than the other 3. 5 NC residents challenged the constitutionality of the district saying it was only there to secure the election of additional black representatives 4. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because they are required by law to hear most redistricting cases

Year Decided (Shaw v. Reno)

1993

Constitutional Clause/Amendment (Shaw v. Reno)

Equal Protection Clause

Constitutional Issue/Question (Shaw v. Reno)

Did North Carolina residents claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Majority Opinion/Decision (Shaw v. Reno)

Final Vote: 5-4 In favor of Shaw Sent the case back to a lower court to be reheard Opinion: Classifications of citizens predominantly on the basis of race are undesirable in a free society and conflict with the American political value of equality