Podcast
Questions and Answers
Which principle, established in Baker v. Carr, is most relevant to redistricting challenges?
Which principle, established in Baker v. Carr, is most relevant to redistricting challenges?
- The principle of 'one person, one vote'. (correct)
- Strict scrutiny applies to all voting laws.
- Federal courts can review redistricting plans.
- States have exclusive power over election administration.
Shaw v. Reno primarily addresses which constitutional concern in redistricting?
Shaw v. Reno primarily addresses which constitutional concern in redistricting?
- Equal protection based on racial gerrymandering. (correct)
- First Amendment rights of political association.
- Equal protection based on geographic size of districts.
- Separation of powers between state and federal legislatures.
What is the significance of the 'compactness' principle often debated in gerrymandering cases?
What is the significance of the 'compactness' principle often debated in gerrymandering cases?
- It ensures districts are geographically small.
- It is mandated under the Voting Rights Act.
- It helps demonstrate that districts were drawn without improper purpose. (correct)
- It guarantees representation for rural voters.
In what way did Baker v. Carr alter the relationship between federal courts and state legislatures concerning redistricting?
In what way did Baker v. Carr alter the relationship between federal courts and state legislatures concerning redistricting?
Which of the following scenarios would most likely trigger judicial scrutiny under the precedent set by Shaw v. Reno?
Which of the following scenarios would most likely trigger judicial scrutiny under the precedent set by Shaw v. Reno?
How does the concept of 'vote dilution' relate to the issues raised in Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno?
How does the concept of 'vote dilution' relate to the issues raised in Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno?
A state creates a redistricting plan where one district has twice the population of another. How might this plan be challenged based on Baker v. Carr?
A state creates a redistricting plan where one district has twice the population of another. How might this plan be challenged based on Baker v. Carr?
Following Shaw v. Reno, which standard do courts apply when evaluating claims of racial gerrymandering?
Following Shaw v. Reno, which standard do courts apply when evaluating claims of racial gerrymandering?
What is the most likely outcome if a court finds that a redistricting plan violates the principles established in both Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno?
What is the most likely outcome if a court finds that a redistricting plan violates the principles established in both Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno?
How do Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno collectively influence modern redistricting reform efforts?
How do Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno collectively influence modern redistricting reform efforts?
Flashcards
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno addressed racial gerrymandering, ruling that districts cannot be drawn solely based on race. It established that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district boundaries.
Baker v. Carr
Baker v. Carr
Baker v. Carr established the principle of 'one person, one vote,' ruling that federal courts can review redistricting cases. It ensured equal representation by requiring districts to be roughly equal in population.
Connection: Shaw v. Reno & Baker v. Carr
Connection: Shaw v. Reno & Baker v. Carr
Shaw v. Reno and Baker v. Carr both concern redistricting but address different issues. Shaw v. Reno deals with racial gerrymandering, while Baker v. Carr focuses on equal representation. These cases are related to the principle of fair and equal representation.
Study Notes
- Gerrymandering
- The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another
- Aims to manipulate district shapes to concentrate or dilute the voting power of certain groups
- Can result in districts with irregular or bizarre shapes
- Two main techniques:
- Cracking: Spreading voters of one party across multiple districts to dilute their voting power
- Packing: Concentrating voters of one party into a single district to reduce their influence in other districts
- Majority-Minority Districts
- Electoral districts in which the majority of residents are members of a racial or ethnic minority group
- Created to ensure minority groups have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice
- Can be controversial when district lines are drawn in a way that appears to prioritize race over other factors
- Electoral College
- A body of electors established by the United States Constitution, constituted every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States
- Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its number of representatives in both houses of Congress
- The candidate who wins the majority of a state's popular vote typically receives all of its electoral votes (except in Maine and Nebraska)
- A candidate can win the presidency without winning the national popular vote
- Winner-Take-All System
- An electoral system in which the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election
- Common in single-member district elections
- Tends to favor larger parties and can disadvantage smaller parties
- Can lead to situations where a candidate wins without securing a majority of the vote
- Proportional Representation
- An electoral system in which seats in a legislature are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives
- Encourages multi-party systems
- Can lead to more diverse representation
- Often used in countries with parliamentary systems
- Shaw v. Reno (1993)
- A landmark Supreme Court case concerning racial gerrymandering
- North Carolina created a congressional district (District 12) with an unusually irregular shape
- The district was designed to create a majority-minority district
- The Court held that the district's shape was so bizarre that it could only be explained as an effort to separate voters based on race
- The Court ruled that race could not be the predominant factor in drawing district lines
- Violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- Baker v. Carr (1962)
- A landmark Supreme Court case concerning redistricting and the principle of "one person, one vote"
- Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, resulting in significant population disparities between districts
- Voters in more populated districts argued that their votes were being diluted compared to voters in less populated districts
- The Court held that redistricting was a justiciable issue, meaning that federal courts could hear cases challenging the fairness of state legislative districts
- Established the principle of "one person, one vote," requiring that legislative districts be roughly equal in population
- Opened the door to numerous legal challenges to redistricting plans across the country
- Connection between Shaw v. Reno and Baker v. Carr and other cases
- Both cases deal with the fairness and constitutionality of electoral districts
- Baker v. Carr established that redistricting is a justiciable issue, allowing courts to hear such cases
- Shaw v. Reno built upon this by addressing the specific issue of racial gerrymandering
- Both cases have been cited in subsequent cases involving redistricting, voting rights, and equal protection
- Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): Applied the "one person, one vote" principle to congressional districts
- Reynolds v. Sims (1964): Applied the "one person, one vote" principle to state legislative districts
- Easley v. Cromartie (2001): Clarified the standard for proving racial gerrymandering after Shaw v. Reno; race cannot be the "predominant" factor in drawing district lines
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
