Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering.The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of ...
The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched.
Shaw v. Reno Case Brief. Statement of the Facts: As a result of the 1990 Census, North Carolina was entitled to a 12 th seat in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the State devised a redistricting plan that created one majority-black district. Under the Voting Rights Act, the State had to get approval for any congressional redistricting ...
United States Supreme Court SHAW v. RENO(1993) No. 92-357 Argued: April 20, 1993 Decided: June 28, 1993. To comply with 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - which prohibits a covered jurisdiction from implementing changes in a "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without federal authorization - North Carolina submitted to the Attorney General a congressional ...
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 509 › Shaw v. Reno Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Opinions; Audio & Media ... SHAW ET AL. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. ... affected racial group's "residential patterns afford the opportunity of creating districts in which they will be in the majority." 430 U. S., at ...
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. SHAW et al. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.
Reapportionment plan for North Carolina Included 1 black minority-majority district 1st plan rejected due to lack of voting representation that would come from just 1 district Revised plan includes a second district This district had an unusual shape White residents claim this is
Read and learn for free about the following article: Shaw v. Reno (1993) If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.
Shaw v. Reno. STUDY. PLAY. ... . Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched ...
SHAW v. RENO sciousness is arguably more appropriate in voting rights than in other contexts. 1 For the first time, the Supreme Court in Shaw held that a congressional district that simply appears "bizarre" is auto-matically subject to strict scrutiny review. 2 This is true even if the