<>stream Attorney General Janet Reno instructed the North Carolina state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with the recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act. Dist. Justices looked to Shaw v. Reno for guidance as they ruled on the legality of racial gerrymandering. Shaw v. Reno (1993) United States v. Lopez (1995) McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Why These Cases? The general assembly took another look at the maps and drew in a second majority-minority district in the north-central region of the state, along Interstate 85. Nonetheless, the notion that North Carolina's plan, under which whites remain a voting majority in a disproportionate number of congressional districts, and pursuant to which the State has sent its first black representatives since Reconstruction to the United States Congress, might have violated appellants' constitutional rights is both a fiction and a departure from settled equal protection principles. In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. Justice O'Connor applied strict scrutiny which asks the court to determine whether a race-based classification is narrowly tailored, has a compelling government interest and offers the "least restrictive" means of achieving that governmental interest. According to the residents' complaint, racial gerrymandering prevented voters from participating in a color-blind voting process. H1n0Ew'`/8'e-9,>HX^c!+ 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." Shaw v. Reno (1993) In 1991, a group of white voters in North Carolina challenged the state's new congressional district map, which had two "majority-minority" districts. In response, the state legislature revised the plan in a way that created two districts (the First and the Twelfth) that would have a majority of black voters. endobj According to the College Board, these cases are essential to college courses in introductory history and politics. An understanding of the nature of appellants' claim is critical to our resolution of the case. Therefore, it should not apply to the White voters who brought this case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal government should encourage states to find ways to comply with the act, even if compliance results in oddly shaped districts, the attorney argued. We suggest making sure to create a study plan and set up your study space with a good environment. 8Mb&|"#>oSRw,NIGJHL)m~CAU8tJ VTWo+k\.HKX~ex>QN+p']9~nmP^Td5JdSZN1tNd_O o=P17\{ endobj Direct link to megamanwhiz's post On one hand, using the sh, Posted 3 years ago. Congress had amended the VRA in 1982 to target "vote dilution" in which members of a specific racial minority were spread thin across a district to decrease their ability to ever gain a voting majority. The fact that it now chooses to apply strict scrutiny when a law is meant to benefit a race that has been the subject of historical discrimination makes no sense. = kd41Ss!9Q The District Court, on remand, must determine whether there is racial gerrymandering, and if so, determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. [29] She noted that under the standard of "strict scrutiny", the districts were irregularly shaped and used race as a deciding factor. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[243.264 230.364 403.92 242.376]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly was entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and redrew its congressional districts to account for the changes in population. Dissents from Justices Blackmun and Stevens echoed Justice White. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like <"minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf.Thornburg v. Gingles(1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place, legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt. 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. This decision, coupled with the "one person, one vote" opinions decided around the same time, had a massive impact on the makeup of the House of Representatives and on electoral politics in general. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[81.0 617.094 129.672 629.106]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> The Equal Protection Clause should only be used to protect those who have been discriminated against in the past, they wrote. endstream Laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of that prohibition. Classifications of citizens on the basis of race "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." subfields aimed at the informed, general reader. According to the College Board, these cases are essential to college courses in introductory history and politics. The facts of this case mirror those presented inUnited Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey(1977) (UJO), where the Court rejected a claim that creation of a majority-minority district violated the Constitution, either as aper sematter or in light of the circumstances leading to the creation of such a district. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. The duty to govern impartially is abused when a group with power over the electoral process defines electoral boundaries solely to enhance its own political strength at the expense of any weaker group. 1995 American Political Science Association 2023 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved. Hirabayashi v. United States(1943). This district would be North Carolina's second "majority-minority" district of majority Black voters. The only justification I can imagine would be the preservation of "sound districting principles," such as compactness and contiguity. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. news media, and private enterprise. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[282.1898 646.0332 531.5161 665.9668]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Shaw v. Reno (1993) " Legislative and congressional districts will be struck down by courts for violating the Equal Protection Clause if they cannot be explained on grounds other than race. xref Nonetheless, in those cases where this cause of action is sufficiently pleaded, the State will have to justify its decision to consider race as being required by a compelling state interest, and its use of race as narrowly tailored to that interest. <>stream However, the phrasing of irregularly drawn districts has left room for much interpretation, letting judges use their opinions rather than relying on Shaw. In his written opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." Baker v. Carr (1961) Established the "one-person, one-vote" principle that districts should be proportionately represented in Congress. <<>> 0000006041 00000 n [6] Gerrymandering has come before the Supreme Court in multiple cases but in Shaw, racial gerrymandering refers to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 80 0 obj This amendment ensured the voting rights of African Americans. 104 0 obj [13], Janet Reno (appellant) was the 78th Attorney General, appointed by President Clinton.[14]. In the lower court record, the district was said to resemble a Rorschach ink-blot test, and theWall Street Journalclaimed the district looked like a "bug splattered on a windshield." <>stream It may be that the terms for pleading this cause of action will be met so rarely that this case will wind up an aberration. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. endobj The question before us is whether appellants have stated a cognizable claim. Appellants contended that the General Assembly's revised reapportionment plan violated several provisions of the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin -Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657[23], The dissenting opinion by Justice White held that Shaw failed to present cognizable harm or that for Shaw to bring this case there had to have been harm done to them one way or another and that this failed to be presented in court. In districting, by contrast, the mere placement of an individual in one district instead of another denies no one a right or benefit provided to others. A group of five white residents of Durham county, North Carolina, headed by Ruth Shaw, challenged the redistricting plan in federal district court as an act of racial gerrymandering that violated various provisions of the Constitution, including the equal protection clause. of Elections, Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Therefore, North Carolina created a plan that resulted in two majority-black districts. Residents objected to the re-apportionment plan, and five White residents from Durham County, North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, filed suit against the state and the federal government. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. H|S[n0)rMl}$' 15NZ),B0L ^s"(54pi( h"A:J!_,:w.Z/W-.?7T]n -dR&((2M N;P@m$QwNzaV nXu-!h?u=q'{lQJj_TfTE}! 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. HAn1E9 1J3 rri3H M>UGw!A"mjfBWg@"Xj j5.%{KB`rW!y Despite their invocation of the ideal of a "color-blind" Constitution, seePlessy v. Ferguson(1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting), appellants appear to concede that race-conscious redistricting is not always unconstitutional. That concession is wise: This Court never has held that race-conscious state decisionmaking is impermissible inallcircumstances. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[123.813 154.941 292.338 163.95]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 76 0 obj When a district obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than their constituency as a whole. You will be asked to compare one of the required cases (for which no information will be provided) with a case that is presented to you on the exam. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. In 1990, the Democratic-led North Carolina General Assembly redistricted the state and created one black majority district, District 1, and another majority-minority district, the now notorious District 12. 75 0 obj Justice OConnor noted that there are some rare circumstances where a law can appear racially neutral, but cannot be explained through anything but race; North Carolinas reapportionment plan fell into this category. 77 0 obj A special three-judge district court dismissed the suit against both the attorney general and the state officials. When an assumption that people in a particular minority group (whether they are defined by the political party, religion, ethnic group, or race to which they belong) will vote in a particular way is used to benefit that group, no constitutional violation occurs. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer. Legislation that classifies a person or group of people solely based on their race is, by its nature, a threat to a system that strives to achieve equality, the majority opined. She has also worked at the Superior Court of San Francisco's ACCESS Center. "[15], 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 gerrymander. endobj Another argument that was made was the "snake-like" structure of the district and how it does not follow the reapportionment guidelines, which led to filling a lawsuit against both the state and federal government for political gerrymandering. To contextualize the Shaw supreme court case, gerrymandering is the redrawing of electoral districts to help give a political advantage. 81 0 obj A federal court upheld the plan as not violating the "one person one vote" principle nor violating the Equal Protection Clause. Racial Gerrymanding and the 14th Amendment, Wikimedia Commons / United States Department of the Interior. XIV, 1 provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 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). Additionally, it was noted that allowing the 12th district to be drawn in that manner would be setting a dangerous precedent in our democratic system in which we are attempting to reach equality. Appellants alleged not that the revised plan constituted a political gerrymander, nor that it violated the "one person, one vote" principle, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964), but that the State had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That duty, however, is not violated when the majority acts to facilitate the election of a member of a group that lacks such power because it remains underrepresented in the state legislature - whether that group is defined by political affiliation, by common economic interests, or by religious, ethnic, or racial characteristics. The Justice Department accepted this revision. 0000006436 00000 n Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. endobj [28], In the aftermath of the Shaw v. Reno decision, the Supreme Court reexamined the topic of racial gerrymandering in the other court cases. Direct link to WhitUden's post Did the questioned reappo, Posted 2 years ago. Croson Co.(1989) (city contracting);Wygant v. Jackson Bd. SHAW v. RENO(1993) No. As the journal of 72 0 obj 0000041724 00000 n Because the holding is limited to such anomalous circumstances, it perhaps will not substantially hamper a State's legitimate efforts to redistrict in favor of racial minorities. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[145.74 211.794 214.836 223.806]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Specifically, it signals a pulling away from using the Equal Protection Clause to benefit black Americans, and rather provides some fodder for those who want to claim that laws benefiting black Americans in particular constitute reverse discrimination. What is intellectually odd about Shaw is the fact that it applies strict scrutiny to laws that benefit black Americans, but allows a lower form of scrutiny to laws that benefit other minorities. For example, a Georgia court ruled that a district of average appearance was invalidated, but North Carolina's snake-like shaped district which could be described as irregular was upheld. We also do not decide whether appellants' complaint stated a claim under constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment. "One Person, One Vote" Cases 1. Political Science & Politics. In my view there is no justification for the Court's determination to depart from our prior decisions by carving out this narrow group of cases for strict scrutiny in place of the review customarily applied in cases dealing with discrimination in electoral districting on the basis of race. The new district was described in Supreme Court's opinion as "snake-like. The resulting district was strangely structured and did not follow reapportionment guidelines which highlighted the importance of compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions." It was 160 miles long and generally corresponded to the Interstate 85 corridor. 0000022159 00000 n The VRA required an increase in the representation of minority groups. [30], There have been controversies and misinterpretations associated with Shaw v. Reno. record for APSA, issues also include Association News, governance %%EOF Since there is no justification for the departure here from the principles that continue to govern electoral districting cases generally in accordance with our prior decisions, I would not respond to the seeming egregiousness of the redistricting now before us by untethering the concept of racial gerrymander in such a case from the concept of harm exemplified by dilution. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(1977). Following is the case brief for Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Case Summary of Shaw v. Reno: The State of North Carolina, in response to the U.S. Attorney General's objection that it had only one majority-black congressional district, created a second majority-black district. Though traditional party conventions were ________, contemporary party conventions are ________. endstream endstream Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. <> Of particular relevance, five of the Justices reasoned that members of the white majority could not plausibly argue that their influence over the political process had been unfairly canceled (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST and STEVENS, J.J.), or that such had been the State's intent (STEWART, J., POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). Residents argued that the state had gone too far when redrawing district lines to create a second majority-minority district. information, and professional opportunities. endobj The decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina is reversed and remanded. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. to apply to redistricting - established "one person one vote" doctrine "the political thicket" (i.e. This outlook has the potential to disenfranchise minorities, as courts may place more importance on the shape of the district, rather than the underrepresented people.[31]. Elianna Spitzer is a legal studies writer and a former Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism research assistant. The second majority-minority district served an important purpose in North Carolinas overall re-apportionment plan. trailer 0000022342 00000 n Wesberry v. Sanders is a landmark case because it mandated that congressional districts throughout the country must be roughly equal in population. [5] With new technology and tactics of packing and cracking, gerrymandering has become easier through the years but within gerrymandering, limitations exist. The case of Shaw v. Reno is significant because it created limitations on racial gerrymandering. Shaw v. Reno places a lot of importance on the actual lines drawn, rather than who they contain. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Rect[510.324 617.094 549.0 629.106]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Ruth Shaw and four other white North Carolina voters filed suit against the U.S. attorney general and various North Carolina officials, claiming that race-based redistricting violated, among other provisions, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 0 The Supreme Court continues to hear cases about gerrymandering and racially motivated districts. Supreme Court cases, which build on Shaw, focus on majority-minority districts and try to answer if race can be used to redistrict districts. "Shaw v. Reno: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact." [2] The redistricting plans of this case were overturned and the overall decision aligned with that of the Shaw case. North Carolina's initial reapportionment effort included one district purposefully constructed to have a majority of black voters. In Bush v. Vera, the state of Texas planned to add additional congressional districts after the 1990 census. They merely allege that the redistricting plan is so irregular on its face that it is clearly an effort to segregate voters by race without appropriate justification. 1, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. [19] It was also argued that the racial gerrymandering hindered the voters from having a blind process of voting. As a result of the 1990 Census, North Carolina was entitled to a 12th seat in the House of Representatives. This same issue was decided in United Jewish Organization of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977) with an opposite result, and the Court should not sidestep that case. This was due to the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal rights to all African-Americans. 0000003836 00000 n Justice Souter noted that the Court seemed to be suddenly applying strict scrutiny to a law that aimed to increase representation amongst a historically discriminated group. Did North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when it established a second majority-minority district through racial gerrymandering, in response to a request from the attorney general? Course: AP/College US Government and Politics, Interactions among branches of government. 0000039375 00000 n . In whatever district, the individual voter has a right to vote in each election, and the election will result in the voter's representation. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. 84 0 obj Under Shaw v. Reno, redistricting can be held to the same legal standard as laws that explicitly classify by race. endobj "One person, one vote" requires congressional districts, to the extent possible, to be equally populated so that each vote carries with it the same amount of influence at the ballot box. The court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution as the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendment do not prohibit the use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. They alleged that the district lines were so dramatically irregular that they constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 68 0 obj E[*]/axzn2c}X~:FNokA7 hg= Nd Its coverage has endobj After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly was entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and redrew its congressional districts to account for the changes in population. The courts also noted that based on the Voting Rights Act, race can be taken into account when redistricting plans are made, but it cannot be the sole factor when drawing a new district because that would violate the fourteenth amendment. As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent inWright v. Rockefellernearly 30 years ago: "Here the individual is important, not his race, his creed, or his color.
Whose Lips Are On The Wild Cherry Album,
Lophostemon Confertus Problems,
Itv Calendar News Presenters,
Articles S