Landmark Supreme Court Case · Voting and representation
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
- Decided
- 1993
- Vote
- 5–4
- Opinion
- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
- Constitutional provisions
Facts of the case
After the 1990 census, North Carolina drew a second majority-Black congressional district (the 12th District) to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The district was extremely irregular. In places it was no wider than the Interstate 85 corridor it followed for about 160 miles. White voters challenged it as a racial gerrymander. (Janet Reno was the U.S. Attorney General.)
The constitutional question
Does a congressional district drawn mainly on the basis of race, with a bizarre shape, raise a valid Equal Protection claim?
The decision
Yes. A redistricting plan so irregular that it can be understood only as an effort to separate voters by race is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court sent the case back for the lower court to apply that standard.
The Court's reasoning
O'Connor wrote that racial gerrymanders reinforce racial stereotypes and threaten to "balkanize us into competing racial factions."
Why it matters
It limited racial gerrymandering. Race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts unless the plan survives strict scrutiny. The district was later struck down in Shaw v. Hunt (1996). See census and redistricting.