Shaw V. Reno

The struggle for civil rights and equality for all is synonymous with the history of America. Since its very beginning, America has experienced tension and conflict regarding what it means to truly have equality of opportunity. During the early 1990s, in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past and provide more equitable representation, the state of North Carolina created a legislative district that would ensure the election of an African American representative. Some white voters asserted that racial considerations in redistricting are wrong, even if it benefits the minority. Let's explore the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno and the implications of racial gerrymandering.

Shaw v. Reno Constitutional Issue

Civil War Amendments

After the Civil war, there were several important amendments added to the US Constitution with the intent of extending freedoms to the formerly enslaved population. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 14th granted citizenship and legal protections to former slaves, and the 15th gave Black men the right to vote. Many southern states soon implemented black codes that disenfranchised black voters.

Black codes in the south tried to keep former slaves from voting.

Legislation Central to Shaw v. Reno

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and President Johnson signed it into law. The law’s intent was to prevent states from enacting discriminatory voting laws. Part of the Act was a provision that banned the drawing of legislative districts based on race.

Fig. 1, President Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks at the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

North Carolina

Five white voters challenged the new district, District #12 because they said it was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. They asserted that drawing a district with race in mind was discriminatory action, even if it were to benefit people of color, and that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional. They filed suit under the name Shaw, and their case was dismissed in District Court, but the voters appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the complaint. The case was argued on April 20, 1993, and decided on June 28, 1993.

The question before the Court was, “Does the 1990 North Carolina redistricting plan violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause?”

14th Amendment:

Shaw v. Reno Arguments

Arguments for Shaw (white voter in North Carolina)

• The Constitution should prohibit using race as a factor in the drawing of legislative districts. The North Carolina plan is not color-blind and is the same as discrimination.
• The traditional criteria for a legislative district are that it is compact and contiguous. District #12 is neither.
• Dividing voters into districts because of race is the same as segregation. This doesn't matter if the intent is to benefit the minority rather than harm them.
• Dividing districts by race assumes that Black voters will only vote for Black candidates and white voters will vote for white candidates. People have different interests and views.

Arguments for Reno (Attorney General of the United States)

• Representation should be reflective of the state’s population. Using race as a factor in redistricting is important and beneficial.
• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages redistricting with minority majorities where there has been discrimination in the past.
• Districts cannot be drawn to discriminate based on race. That does not mean that using race to draw districts to benefit minorities is unconstitutional.

Shaw v. Reno Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Shaw, the five white voters in North Carolina. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner authored the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Justices Blackman, Stevens, Souter, and White dissented.

The majority held that the case should be sent back to a lower court to determine if North Carolina’s redistricting plan could be justified in any other way besides race.

The majority wrote that racial gerrymandering would

The dissenting justices argued that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional only if it benefits the group in control and harms minority voters.

Shaw v. Reno Significance

The case of Shaw v. Reno is significant because it created limitations on racial gerrymandering. The Court held that when districts are created and there is no other obvious reason apart from race, the district will be examined with strict scrutiny.

Shaw v. Reno Impact

The lower court did affirm North Carolina’s redistricting plan because they determined there was a compelling state interest in safeguarding the Voting Rights Act. To illustrate the controversy surrounding Shaw v. Reno, the case was once again challenged and sent back to the Supreme Court, this time as Shaw v. Hunt. In 1996, the Court ruled that North Carolina’s redistricting plan was indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The case of Shaw v. Reno affected state legislatures thereafter. States had to show that their redistricting plans could be backed up by compelling state interest and that their plan had to have the most compact districts and be the most reasonable plan possible.

The Supreme Court of the United States has an integral job safeguarding constitutional protections and voting rights. Shaw v. Reno did not settle the issue of what constitutes irregular districts, and cases regarding gerrymandering continue to make their way to the Supreme Court.