Decision Shaw v. Reno

1 decision

1.1 factual background , majority opinion
1.2 dissents
1.3 impact

decision
factual background , majority opinion

north carolina s congressional districts (1993–1998); 12th district in pink.

the case involved redistricting of north carolina after 1990 census. north carolina submitted department of justice map 1 majority-minority black district—that is, district black majority. department of justice believed state have drawn such majority-minority district in order improve representation of black voters rather including them within 1 district. state revised map , submitted new plan, 1 2 majority-minority districts. proposed 12th district 160 miles (260 km) long, winding through state connect various areas having in common large black population. federal district court dismissed lawsuit north carolina voters on grounds had no claim relief under standard set previous supreme court case, united jewish organizations of williamsburgh v. carey.

justice sandra day o connor delivered opinion of court, reversed of district court. described shape of new district bizarre , said such district bears uncomfortable resemblance political apartheid. court found if redistricting map bizarre on face unexplainable on grounds other race , claim relief under fourteenth amendment united states constitution available plaintiffs. such redistricting held unconstitutional if found intended segregate voters race , segregation cannot justified under standard of strict scrutiny. actions subject standard must satisfy 3 conditions: compelling government interest, narrowly tailored achieve goal, , least restrictive means achieving interest.

dissents

the dissenters noted:

(1) case brought white voters challenging district. boundaries had enabled district s majority of black voters elect majority-white state s first black representatives congress since 1898, when george henry white re-elected second term in congress north carolina s 2nd congressional district. (in 1899, after north carolina democrats passed new state constitution disfranchise blacks, white chose not seek third term in congress. told chicago tribune, cannot live in north carolina , man , treated man. moved washington, dc.)
(2) holding citing 14th amendment perversely made redistricting advantaged blacks subject more rigorous scrutiny redistricting advantaging other non-racial groups, though 14th amendment intended provide equal protection blacks after emancipation , abolition of slavery, and;
(3) allowing race-based voting blocs distinct other forms of affirmative action, insofar allowing race-based blocs not deny person rights , privileges, example, race-based hiring , retention practices do.

impact

subsequent decisions on similar issues have made use of shaw , refined it, though 4 dissenters have held fast in belief no cause of action exists. instance, miller v. johnson, 515 u.s. 900 (1995), concerned irregular district in georgia, decided 5-4, majority comprising same 5 justices in shaw.