Key Takeaways

1. Shaw v. Reno (1993) established that redistricting plans predominantly motivated by race are subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court held that while race can be considered in redistricting, it cannot be the overriding factor, and any race-based districting must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
3. Shaw v. Reno set a precedent for challenging racial gerrymandering and continues to shape the legal landscape for redistricting and voting rights in the United States.

Introduction

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), stands as a watershed moment in the history of American electoral law. This Supreme Court decision addressed the contentious issue of racial gerrymandering in legislative redistricting, specifically focusing on the constitutionality of creating voting districts primarily based on race. The case arose from North Carolina’s response to the 1990 Census and the subsequent requirement to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The resulting oddly shaped district was challenged by residents who argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shaw v. Reno established new constitutional standards for evaluating claims of racial gerrymandering and has had a profound influence on how legislative districts are drawn in the United States.

Background of Shaw v. Reno

The Context: Redistricting After the 1990 Census

Every ten years, following the decennial census, states are required to redraw their congressional districts to reflect population changes. This process, known as redistricting, is essential to ensure equal representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, redistricting has often been manipulated for political or other purposes, a practice known as gerrymandering.

In the early 1990s, North Carolina faced the task of redrawing its congressional districts. The 1990 Census indicated that North Carolina was entitled to a twelfth congressional seat. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly Section 2, states were required to ensure that minority voters had an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initially rejected North Carolina’s proposed map because it failed to create a second majority-Black district, arguing that the state’s Black population warranted such representation.

The Creation of the "I-85 District"

In response to the DOJ’s rejection, North Carolina devised a new map that included a second majority-Black district. This new district, however, was highly irregular in shape, stretching over 160 miles along Interstate 85 and at points no wider than the highway itself. The district’s shape was so unusual that it garnered national attention and was described as “bizarre” and “serpentine.”

Several white residents of North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, filed suit, alleging that the creation of the district constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was initially dismissed by the district court, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

For more details on the case background, see the Oyez summary.

The Legal Issues Presented

The Core Question

At the heart of Shaw v. Reno was the question: Can a state draw electoral districts primarily based on race, even with the intention of complying with the Voting Rights Act? The plaintiffs argued that North Carolina’s plan separated voters into districts based on race, which, they claimed, stigmatized individuals and undermined the principle of equal protection.

The Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been interpreted to prohibit states from enacting laws or policies that discriminate on the basis of race.

On the other hand, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to combat racial discrimination in voting, especially in states with a history of disenfranchising Black voters. Section 2 of the Act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

The tension in Shaw v. Reno arose from the intersection of these two legal mandates: the constitutional prohibition against racial classifications and the statutory requirement to ensure minority representation.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Majority Opinion

On June 28, 1993, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of Shaw. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, held that the bizarre shape of North Carolina’s second majority-Black district was strong evidence that race was the predominant factor in its creation. The Court reasoned that such racial gerrymandering, even if intended to benefit minority voters, could not withstand constitutional scrutiny unless it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

Justice O’Connor wrote:

“Redistricting legislation that is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification, demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race.”

The Court did not categorically prohibit the consideration of race in redistricting. Instead, it established that race cannot be the predominant factor. If it is, the redistricting plan must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” the highest standard of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, the state must show that the plan serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

For the official text of the decision, see Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

The Dissenting Opinion

The dissent, authored by Justice White, argued that the majority’s decision would hinder efforts to remedy past discrimination and ensure minority representation. The dissenters contended that the Voting Rights Act required states to be proactive in creating majority-minority districts where possible, and that the mere oddity of a district’s shape should not, by itself, trigger strict scrutiny.

Justice White wrote:

“The Court’s holding today is unprecedented and unwise. It will only serve to make compliance with the Voting Rights Act more difficult and uncertain.”

For a full analysis of the dissent, see Britannica’s summary.

Legal Reasoning and Standards Established

Strict Scrutiny in Racial Gerrymandering

The most significant doctrinal development from Shaw v. Reno is the application of strict scrutiny to cases of racial gerrymandering. Under this standard, any government action that classifies individuals by race must be:

1. Justified by a compelling governmental interest (such as remedying past discrimination),
2. Narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,
3. The least restrictive means available.

This standard is extremely difficult for states to meet, and it serves as a powerful check against the use of race in redistricting.

The Role of Traditional Districting Principles

The Court emphasized the importance of traditional districting principles, such as compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, and preservation of communities of interest. When a district’s shape is so irregular that it cannot be explained by these principles, but only by racial considerations, it raises a strong inference of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

The “Predominant Factor” Test

Shaw v. Reno did not bar all consideration of race in redistricting. Instead, it established the “predominant factor” test: If race is the predominant factor motivating the district’s boundaries—over and above traditional principles—then the district is subject to strict scrutiny.

For more on the legal standards, see Justia’s case summary.

Impact and Legacy of Shaw v. Reno

Immediate Aftermath

The decision in Shaw v. Reno sent shockwaves through the world of redistricting. States were forced to reconsider their redistricting plans, especially those that had created oddly shaped majority-minority districts in response to the Voting Rights Act. Many such districts were challenged in court, leading to a series of subsequent Supreme Court cases that further refined the legal standards for racial gerrymandering.

Subsequent Supreme Court Cases

Shaw v. Reno was the first in a line of cases addressing racial gerrymandering. Key follow-up decisions include:

• Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995): The Court clarified that race must not be the predominant factor in redistricting unless justified by a compelling interest and that compliance with the Voting Rights Act does not automatically justify race-based districting.
• Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996): The Court struck down Texas congressional districts for being drawn predominantly on the basis of race.
• Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001): The Court recognized the difficulty in distinguishing between political and racial motivations in redistricting but reaffirmed that race cannot predominate.

These cases have established a complex body of law that governs the interplay between race, redistricting, and the Equal Protection Clause. For more on these cases, see the Oyez project.

Influence on Redistricting Practices

Shaw v. Reno fundamentally changed how states approach redistricting. While the Voting Rights Act still requires states to ensure minority representation, Shaw prohibits the use of race as the predominant factor unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. As a result, states must balance the need to comply with federal law with the constitutional prohibition against racial classifications.

The decision also increased litigation over redistricting, as both majority-minority and majority-white districts came under scrutiny for potential racial gerrymandering. The case has been cited in numerous challenges to redistricting plans at both the state and federal levels.

Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

Shaw v. Reno has been both praised and criticized. Supporters argue that it upholds the principle of a “color-blind” Constitution and prevents the balkanization of American politics along racial lines. Critics contend that it undermines efforts to remedy historical discrimination and limits the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act.

There is also ongoing debate about how to draw the line between permissible consideration of race and unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has struggled with cases where race and political affiliation are closely correlated, making it difficult to determine the true motivation behind district boundaries.

For a discussion of these debates, see FindLaw’s case analysis.

Practical Implications for Attorneys and Policymakers

Drafting Redistricting Plans

Attorneys and policymakers involved in redistricting must carefully navigate the requirements of both the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. Shaw v. Reno requires that race not be the predominant factor in drawing districts unless there is a compelling reason and the plan is narrowly tailored.

To avoid legal challenges, states should:

• Rely on traditional districting principles,
• Document the criteria and process used to draw districts,
• Avoid creating districts that are so irregular that they can only be explained by racial considerations,
• Be prepared to justify any use of race as necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Litigating Racial Gerrymandering Claims

For attorneys challenging or defending redistricting plans, Shaw v. Reno provides a clear framework. Plaintiffs must show that race was the predominant factor in the creation of a district. If they succeed, the burden shifts to the state to show that the plan is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.

Litigators should gather evidence such as:

• The shape and demographics of the district,
• Statements and documents from the redistricting process,
• The application (or lack thereof) of traditional districting principles.

For official resources and case law, attorneys can consult the Supreme Court’s opinions and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Act guidance.

Policy Considerations

Shaw v. Reno continues to influence debates about the proper role of race in American politics. As the nation becomes more diverse and as voting patterns evolve, the principles established in Shaw will remain central to discussions about representation, fairness, and the future of American democracy.

Conclusion

Shaw v. Reno is a landmark Supreme Court case that reshaped the landscape of American redistricting law. By holding that racial gerrymandering claims are subject to strict scrutiny, the Court ensured that states must tread carefully when considering race in drawing electoral districts. The decision has had a lasting impact on how districts are drawn, how cases are litigated, and how the principles of equal protection and minority representation are balanced.

For attorneys seeking deeper insights, comprehensive case law, and advanced research tools, visit Counsel Stack for authoritative legal research.

Disclaimer: This guide provides an overview of Shaw v. Reno and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Redistricting law is complex and fact-specific, and there are many nuances and subsequent developments not covered here. For specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or conduct further research using official sources.