Fast Facts: Shaw v. Reno Case Argued: April 20, 1993 Decision Issued: June 28, 1993 [2], Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters-a goal that the Fourteen and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. -Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657[23]. Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. The proposed 12th district was 160 miles (260km) long, winding through the state to connect various areas having in common only a large Black population and cut through five counties which split into three voting districts. Review questions How does redistricting affect the behavior of members of Congress? Shaw v. Reno - 509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816 (1993) Rule: The Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. 0000003285 00000 n E[*]/axzn2c}X~:FNokA7 hg= Nd The Equal Protection Clause is only violated when a law seeks to hurt a minority group in voting. XIV, 1 provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If any state wanted to change any voting rules, they had to receive pre-clearance to ensure no new rule was racist. It is ironic that it does so when white voters challenge a law that would have North Carolina send a black representative to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction. 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. 75 0 obj In their complaint, appellants did not claim that the General Assembly's reapportionment plan unconstitutionally "diluted" white voting strength. Wesberry v. Sanders - Case Summary and Case Brief - Legal Dictionary endobj San Antonio Indep. Interactions among branches of government: unit overview - Khan Academy On March 26, 1962, the Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr, finding that it had the power to review the redistricting of state legislative districts under the 14th Amendment. One of the lower court judges described it as winding in a snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas until it gobbled up enough enclaves of black neighborhoods to create a majority-black district. Justice O'Connor, on behalf of the majority, found that redistricting plans could take race into account in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but race could not be the sole or predominant factor when drawing a district. 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." Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association. [7] Section 2 of this act opposes using discriminatory voting practices in the election process and that in itself prohibits gerrymandering based on race. In addition to being unclear, Shaw has the ability to disenfranchise minorities. "People, not trees or pastures, vote."' That rationale was the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims2 which estab-lished the landmark "one person, one vote" principle. 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.
When Are National Merit Finalists Announced 2022,
Snitches Carter County Tenn,
Articles S