Start studying Shaw v. Reno. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Shaw v Reno (1993) The Court ruled that although it was a legitimate goal for state legislatures to take race into account when they draw electoral districts in order ot increase the voting strength of minorities, they may not make race the sole reason for drawing district lines.
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 Shaw v. Reno case examined whether or not there was equal protection in a district within North Carolina. It was decided, 5-4, that there was not equal protection; redistricting that had taken place was done through unacceptable racial gerrymandering, according to the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that North Carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification.
Blog. 11 April 2019. Best 10 resources for pictures for presentations; 26 March 2019. Our 20 best presentation backgrounds that grab your attention; 26 March 2019
Citation. 509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816, 125 L. Ed. 2d 511, 1993 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that the Appellants, Shaw and others (Appellants), have a legitimate claim that North Carolina’s redistricting scheme was so irregular on its face that it could only be viewed as an effort to segregate races for the purposes of voting, without ...
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 ...
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
Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.