Main content
Course: AP®︎/College US Government and Politics > Unit 2
Lesson 3: Congressional behaviorShaw v. Reno (1993)
Key points
- In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two “majority-minority” districts. The group claimed that the districts were racial gerrymanders that violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts.
Background of the case
After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. Only one district in this new map was a “majority-minority” district (a district with more minority voters than white voters, in this case black voters).
The US Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Janet Reno, rejected North Carolina’s district plan, instructing the state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with recent amendments to the . The proposed second district was oddly-shaped, following along a highway for nearly the entire length of the state.
After the General Assembly passed legislation creating the second district, a group of white voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional . Shaw’s group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitutional question at stake
Did the North Carolina residents who objected to the majority-minority district raise a valid question under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision
Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. Although district plans may take racial considerations into account, and must meet the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts.
Why does Shaw v. Reno matter?
The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Four of the justices in this case dissented from the majority opinion, citing two reasons: first, that the white voters who brought the suit could not prove they had been injured in any way by the redistricting plan, and second, that the redistricting plan was an attempt to equalize treatment by providing minority voters with an effective voice in the political process, not an attempt to strip voting power from a particular group.
What do you think?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of majority-minority districts?
How are the cases Shaw v. Reno and Baker v. Carr similar? How are they different?
Want to join the conversation?
I'm struggling with a phrase near the end: "[...] attempt to equalize treatment by providing minority voters with an effective voice in the political process." Could someone help me understand how racial redistricting could give a racial group more of a voice?(13 votes)
I think an example could be made:
If there were NO gerrymandering, and
If that resulted in 3 districts with 2/3 white and 1/3 minority voters in each district
It might result in NO minority Congressional Representatives (3 white), whereas;
One gerrymandered district with mostly minorities, two with mostly white
might result in 2 white and 1 minority Reps,
and therefore a direct minority voice in Congress.
I hope that helps.(51 votes)
Would fixing gerrymandering by using the shortest-split line method be a good idea.(5 votes)
On one hand, using the shortest-split method would be completely unbiased and could prevent partisan and racial gerrymandering.
On the other, a district that has been gerrymandered can provide a greater chance for minorities to get their views into the government. For more explanation, see Harriet Buchanan's answer to the question above.
Hope this helps.(6 votes)
Did the questioned reapportionment (with the snakelike 12th district) provide an advantage to the minority groups or to the white voters?(4 votes)
It gave an advantage to the minority group. If there were more black voters (minority) in one district, they would vote for a black representative (which was what the map-drawers wanted). It had good intentions to let a black person be a representative, but because it was drawn to separate people by race it was voted against. (Hope this helped)(3 votes)
- What would be the two conflicting constitutional principle?(4 votes)
How does racial gerrymandering go against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?(2 votes)- if someone is in a district that is favored by gerrymandering, that means that their vote means more than other districts, and the populations are not being protected equally(2 votes)
- what are the advantages and disadvantages of majority-minority districts?(2 votes)
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of majority-minority districts?One of the advantages of majority-minority districts is that representation is provided to historically disadvantaged groups. One con to majority-minority districts is the possibility of a majority group using it with ill-intent.2. How are the cases Shaw v. Reno and Baker v. Carr similar? How are they different?
The cases Shaw v. Reno and Baker v. Carr are similar because they both cover redistricting and what's legal and illegal in terms of it. They also cover the topic of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. The differences between them, however, are that Shaw v. Reno concerned racial gerrymandering and the fairness of that while Baker v. Carr concerned equal districts population-wise and got SCOTUS a little more involved in questions more on the political side.(1 vote)- How would both views of the situation be similar.(0 votes)