Shaw v. Reno Significance Flashcards

Questions and Answers

Why was Shaw v Reno an important decision in terms of minority representation?

The group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts.

Why is Shaw v Reno important?

Shaw v Reno represents a conservative shift on the Court.

What was argued in Shaw v Reno?

In 1991, white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, claiming the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was the background of the Shaw v Reno case?

After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts, resulting in only one 'majority-minority' district. Signup and view all the answers

Did the North Carolina residents who objected to the majority-minority district raise a valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment?

True Signup and view all the answers

Why does Shaw v Reno matter?

The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny. Signup and view all the answers

Why did four justices in Shaw v Reno dissent from the majority opinion?

They argued that the white voters could not prove they had been injured by the redistricting and that the plan aimed to equalize treatment by giving minority voters an effective voice. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the District Court dismiss the Shaw v Reno case?

They found that race-based districting is not prohibited by the Constitution. Signup and view all the answers

Where was the Rule of Law or Legal Principle applied in Shaw v Reno?

If a reapportionment plan creates a district that is so irregular that it separates voters based on race, then an Equal Protection challenge is valid. Signup and view all the answers

What was Justice Blackmun's dissent opinion?

Justice Blackmun stated that the Court abandoned settled law to decide the case, which was ironic since it involved white voters challenging a law that would elect a black representative. Signup and view all the answers

What was Justice Stevens' dissent opinion?

Justice Stevens argued that there is no constitutional requirement of compactness or contiguity for districts. Signup and view all the answers

What was Justice Souter's dissent opinion?

Justice Souter noted that past decisions allowed redistricting to benefit unrepresented minorities, and applying strict scrutiny in this case seemed inconsistent. Signup and view all the answers

Who was the petitioner in the Shaw v Reno case?

Ruth O. Shaw. Signup and view all the answers

Who were the majority justices in the Shaw v Reno case?

Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Signup and view all the answers

Who were the dissenting justices in the Shaw v Reno case?

Justices White, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter. Signup and view all the answers

What was the ruling in simple terms in the Shaw v Reno case?

When a newly created district cannot be explained by means other than race, it is subject to strict scrutiny. Signup and view all the answers

What did North Carolina argue in the Shaw v Reno case?

They argued that the second district was created to better comply with requests from the Attorney General in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Importance of Shaw v. Reno

Shaw v. Reno addressed racial gerrymandering, reinforcing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating electoral districts.

Context of the Case

Originated from a 1991 challenge by white voters in North Carolina against a congressional map with "majority-minority" districts.
After the 1990 census, North Carolina's General Assembly redrew congressional districts, resulting in only one majority-minority district initially recognized.

Legal Arguments and Court Decisions

North Carolina residents questioned the constitutionality of oddly shaped districts, asserting they were creations solely for racial separation.
The Court held that any reapportionment plan with irregular districts that aims to separate voters by race can face valid Equal Protection challenges.

Dissenting Opinions

Four justices dissented, arguing:
- The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury from the redistricting.
- The redistricting aimed to enhance minority representation rather than undermine any group's voting power.
Justice Blackmun expressed concern over the Court abandoning established law by siding with white plaintiffs against a law benefiting minority representation.

Strict Scrutiny Standard

The ruling established that racial redistricting is subject to strict scrutiny, which necessitates a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
North Carolina's defense argued the intent to comply with the Voting Rights Act by increasing minority representation justified the new district's shape.

Key Figures in the Case

Petitioner: Ruth O. Shaw, leading a group of white voters in the lawsuit.
Majority Justices: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
Dissenting Justices: White, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Explore the key concepts and implications of the Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno. This quiz will help you understand why this 1993 decision is crucial for minority representation and the legal standards surrounding redistricting and racial gerrymandering.