Shaw v. Reno case brief

Shaw v. Reno (1993)(p. 271) Redistricting

Use of race in drawing election districts is only constitutional if the government can show that it’s necessary to achieve a compelling purpose.

Facts: NC reapportioned state’s seats in HR based on 1990 census included one majority-black congressional district. After AG objected to the plan pursuant to section 5 of the VRA, the General Assembly created a second majority-black district. There was no claim of vote dilution, but that the Constitution required a color blind redistricting. They claim that the separating by race, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right to participate in a color-blind voting process. Plaintiff’s claim that it is so irrational that it could not be anything else than to sort the district by race.

Holding: A plaintiff challenging a reapportionment statue under the EP Clause may state a claim by alleging that the legislation, even though race neutral on its face, rationally can’t be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, which lacks sufficient justification. O’Connor says district is bizarre looking, she compares this to the gerrymandering of the 1870s. Said this type of legislative line drawing prohibited minority voting historically. Claimed constitutional right to color blind districting. She invokes Washington and says the central purpose of the EP Clause was to prevent the states from discrimination. She infers intent from the manner in which the district was drawn. It doesn’t matter whether the state intended to be racially discriminatory or not. If the result of reapportionment dilutes a minority vote, it is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

• Cites Gomillion, Wright in order to set up precedent re: the fact that race-based classifications have not previously been allowed. Both cases intended to stop an exclusionary principle.
• Court says they are not reaching the issue of whether a minority-majority district is ever permissible.