Shaw v. Reno Case Overview

Questions and Answers

What is the name of the Supreme Court case discussed?

Roe v. Wade

Marbury v. Madison

Shaw v. Reno (correct)

Brown v. Board of Education

In what year was Shaw v. Reno decided?

1993

The constitutional issue in Shaw v. Reno involved the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

False

What constitutional clause was at the heart of the Shaw v. Reno case?

Equal Protection Clause Signup and view all the answers

What was one of the key arguments made by the petitioner in Shaw v. Reno?

District drawing based on race is prohibited. Signup and view all the answers

What significant changes did the ruling in Shaw v. Reno lead to?

Changes in redistricting and gerrymandering Signup and view all the answers

What were the facts of the case in Shaw v. Reno?

The US attorney general rejected a redistricting plan that created only one black majority district, leading to a challenge on the constitutionality of a new plan with two districts where one was much smaller. Signup and view all the answers

What was the final vote in the Supreme Court decision for Shaw v. Reno?

5-4 Signup and view all the answers

What did the majority opinion conclude regarding classifications of citizens based on race?

They are undesirable in a free society and conflict with the American political value of equality. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Case Overview

Shaw v. Reno decided in 1993.
Central question centered on 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause concerning racial discrimination in redistricting.

Constitutional Issue

North Carolina's 1990 redistricting plan was challenged for allegedly discriminating based on race.

Ruling Significance

The ruling influenced future redistricting and gerrymandering practices, emphasizing race as a contentious factor in district layout.

Key Constitutional Clause

Equal Protection Clause was pivotal to the case, focusing on race-based electoral districting.

Facts of the Case

Initial rejection of North Carolina's congressional plan due to only one black majority district.
Proposal of a modified plan with two districts, but highlighted disparities in size and shape.
Five residents contested the constitutionality of the second plan, claiming it served mostly to elect additional black representatives.
The Supreme Court had to hear the case under legal obligations to address redistricting issues.

Petitioner Arguments (Shaw)

Asserted that using race in district drawing is unconstitutional.
Claimed the plan represented unlawful racial discrimination.
Pointed out that District 12 lacked compactness and contiguity, violating districting criteria.
Argued that drawing districts by race perpetuates stereotypes about voting behavior of different races.

Respondent Arguments (Reno)

Argued that race can be considered in redistricting as long as boundaries are not excessively irregular.
Cited the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which promotes districts with majority minority populations.

Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shaw with a 5-4 vote.
Directed the case back to lower courts for reassessment.
Emphasized that categorizing citizens largely by race undermines the principles of a free society and the American value of equality.

Description

Explore the landmark Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno, which addressed the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to racial discrimination in redistricting. Learn about the facts of the case, the constitutional issues at stake, and the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling on future electoral districting practices.