Shaw v. Reno

Shaw v. Reno
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 20, 1993 Decided June 28, 1993
Full case name	Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States et al.
Citations	509 U.S. 630 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2816; 125 L. Ed. 2d 511; 61 U.S.L.W. 4818; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4406
Case history
Prior	Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461 (E.D.N.C. 1992)
Subsequent	On remand, Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994); reversed, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001).
Holding
Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority	O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent	White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent	Blackmun
Dissent	Stevens
Dissent	Souter

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause. In contrast, Janet Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

Shaw was an influential case that played a role in deciding important voting rights cases, including Bush v. Vera and Miller v. Johnson. Some southern states have continued to file against majority-Black districts. The North Carolina districts have been considered by the Supreme Court at least five times, and were redrawn in 2010 after Republicans gained control of the state legislature. There have been few attempts to study empirically whether gerrymandering procedures have advanced the goals of the Shaw.

Background

Gerrymandering

Main article: Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the redrawing of electoral districts to help give a political advantage. The decennial census marks when states can redraw their congressional district lines and in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, districts must be redrawn equally populated.

When voting in a state is racially polarized, district boundaries can be redrawn to give an advantage to incumbents or a political party, but redistricting may have the effect of reducing the voting power of minority groups.

Racial gerrymandering was found to violate the Constitution in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, and racial gerrymanders that pack or crack minority voters intentionally may be challenged in court. However, racial gerrymandering continued past 1965 because it was difficult to prove if districts were drawn on the basis of racial discrimination. In 1993 Shaw v. Reno created a new type of gerrymandering claim.

Voting Rights Act

Section 5: Preclearance

In 1870, following the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, the 15th amendment was passed, giving all United States citizens the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. After its enactment, many southern states openly supported and pursued the disenfranchisement of black voters by passing state laws that would have the effect of preventing blacks from exercising their right to vote. Some of these included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (which stated that one can only vote if their grandfather voted). Eventually, after many decades, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 suspended literacy tests in states that had a history of racial gaps in voter turnout. Those states were required to seek preclearance before changing their election procedures, including drawing new district boundaries.

Section 2: Vote dilution

Vote dilution was recognized as an equal protection violation in the Supreme Court decision White v. Regester, but in Mobile v. Bolden the Supreme Court made it more difficult to win vote dilution claims. This directly led to Congress adopting a results-oriented standard for vote dilution as part of Section 2 of the VRA in 1982. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act opposes using discriminatory voting practices in the election process and racial gerrymandering that creates non-compact districts. The amended section 2 has been applied by the Supreme Court ever since, following the landmark decision in Thornburg v. Gingles.

Shaw was not a dilution claim. There was no chance that white voters in North Carolina could win a Section 2 vote dilution claim. The Shaw decision recognized that there was tension between vote dilution claims and racially motivated redistricting. While Gingles required compact districts for a successful vote dilution claim, Shaw allowed non-compact district boundaries (as long as they passed strict scrutiny). Ever since, Courts applying Shaw have assumed that compliance with the Voting Rights Act was a compelling state interest that could survive strict scrutiny.

North Carolina

North Carolina was a covered state subject to the VRA's preclearance requirement. The state had a history of denying the political rights of blacks and had not elected any black candidates to Congress since 1901. In 1992, the two black-majority districts created by redistricting each elected a black representative. These districts were challenged in the Shaw v. Reno case. North Carolina's black-majority districts have been challenged at the Supreme Court at least five times.

Case

The case arose from legislative redistricting by the Democratic-controlled legislature in North Carolina. After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly was entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and redrew its congressional districts to account for the changes in population. The original plan submitted included only one "majority-minority" district of majority Black voters. The North Carolina General Assembly submitted the plan to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, but it was rejected by the US Department of Justice. (At the time the government policy was that Section 5 required the creation of majority-minority districts when possible.) Attorney General Janet Reno instructed the North Carolina state assembly to add another majority-minority district to gain preclearance.

Democrats responded by passing a plan that included some "bizarre"-shaped districts, including a new Congressional District 12 that tied together disparate populations of African-American voters along a thin 160 mile "snakelike" corridor. The plan was challenged as a partisan gerrymander in Pope v. Blue. When this claim failed in district court, opponents of the plan argued that the redistricting was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed a lawsuit by North Carolina voters on the grounds that they had no claim for relief under United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey because the 14th and 15th amendments did not completely ban the use of racial factors in districting and apportionment.

Arguments

Janet Reno (appellant) was the 78th Attorney General, appointed by President Clinton. Ruth O. Shaw (named appellee) was a white Democratic resident of the 12th district in North Carolina.

Shaw

Shaw and five other North Carolina residents filed an action against the state, declaring that the state had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering violating the Fourteenth Amendment. It was also argued that the racial gerrymandering hindered the voters from having a blind process of voting. This was a previous problem that discriminated against the minority voters. However, the White residents thought it was hindering their voices racially. Then, the residents argued that the state had gone too far this time by redrawing the district lines and creating a second district that was dominated by the minorities. Another argument that was made was the "snake-like" structure of the district and how it does not follow the reapportionment guidelines, which led to filling a lawsuit against both the state and federal government for political gerrymandering.

Reno

Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the creation of the second district was necessary to follow the request of the General Assembly that required them to abide by the Voting Right Act of 1965, which would increase the representation of the minority groups and allow them to have more of a voice when voting. This was designed to prevent any discrimination by race, and North Carolina thought this plan was completely aligned with the request of the General Assembly guidelines. It included that the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal government that allowed states to find any possible way to comply to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, even if it meant having a strangely structured district like this one which Reno argued against.

Decision

Majority opinion

In a 5–4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner), finding the maps to be a racial gerrymander. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in which she explains the court's ruling. In it, she writes that the court found that the shape of North Carolina's 12th district was so "bizarre" that the only reasonable explanation was that it had been drawn on the basis of race. Although Gomillion was decided under the Fifteenth Amendment, Justice O'Connor cites Justice Charles Evans Whittaker's concurrence recognizing the equal protection issue presented by racial gerrymanders. The Courts also noted that based on the Voting Rights Act, race can be taken into account when redistricting plans are made, but it cannot be the sole factor when drawing a new district because that would violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. 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

This supported the argument to consider very obvious racial gerrymanders under a strict scrutiny standard. The Court acknowledged that complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a compelling state interest, but the Gingles criteria must be proven with evidence. If the racial gerrymander was necessary to avoid vote dilution under Section 2, it must be reviewed under strict scrutiny like all racial classifications. The case was remanded back to the district court to consider whether this racial gerrymander would survive strict scrutiny.

The Supreme Court explained that the "racial gerrymandering" claim it created in this case would be "analytically distinct" from vote dilution claims.

Dissents

The dissenting opinion by Justice White held that Shaw failed to present cognizable harm or that for Shaw to bring the case there must have been harm done to them one way or another and that this failed to be presented in court. Additionally, he noted the voting interests of those who brought the case had not been violated. He also stated that drawing districts on the basis of race could prove to be beneficial for minority communities.

The dissenting opinions from Justice Blackmun and Stevens also brought many of the same points as White and they also added that the purpose of the equal protection clause was only to protect those who have been historically discriminated against. Therefore, it should not apply to the White voters who brought this case.

Justice Souter noted the arbitrary nature of the strict scrutiny applied in this case. He detailed that the 12th district was ultimately drawn to benefit a minority group hence making the strict scrutiny applied to feel unreasonable.

"The difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gerrymanders has nothing to do with whether they are based on assumptions about the groups they affect, but whether their purpose is to enhance the power of the group in control of the districting process at the expense of any minority group, and thereby to strengthen the unequal distribution of electoral power." - Shaw, 509 U.S. at 678

Aftermath

Impact

The significance of the Shaw v. Reno decision is heavily debated but it had a lasting impact on how the Voting Rights Act was going to be enforced and the structure of the U.S. political system. There have been few attempts to study empirically whether gerrymandering claims have advanced the goals of the Shaw. Bernard Grofman said that he does not believe Shaw to be a game-changer, but he does emphasize that while their consequences might not be as far-reaching, its succeeding cases are.

Soon after Shaw was decided lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of majority-black districts in Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.

Two African-Americans candidates were elected in North Carolina in 1992 using the precleared redistricting plan. In 1993 the Supreme Court decided Shaw and remanded the case back to the district court to consider the gerrymander under the strict scrutiny standard. In 1994 the district court upheld the black majority districts. The district court found that the districts were deliberately drawn so that African-American citizens had a voting majority and held that both congressional districts satisfied strict scrutiny because the state had a compelling interest in complying with the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

The precleared plan was used again in the 1994 elections, and again two of the twelve candidates elected were African American. However, the partisan composition of the delegation followed the national trend that was favorable to Republicans. Litigation continued over the same districts in Shaw v. Hunt which held that the government's policy of maximizing black-majority districts was not properly grounded in Section 5, nor could complying with Section 2 be a compelling interest for a district that was not compact. However, despite these findings, the district court allowed the map to be used in the 1996 elections, and once again, North Carolina elected two African American candidates. Two African American candidates were elected under a new map in 1998. These districts continued to be a target for hostile litigation even as a new decennial redistricting was underway. There was no gerrymandering litigation for North Carolina districts between 2000 and 2010, but when Republicans gained control of the state legislature in 2010, the districts were redrawn. The redistricting did not change the amount of representation for North Carolina black voters because the two African-American incumbents were re-elected.

Related cases

After holding that the "bizarre" shape of the two North Carolina congressional districts was a racial gerrymander, the Supreme Court developed the new racial gerrymandering claim created by Shaw in the 1990s. "Highly irregular" districts were called into question, but Shaw did not unpack what that means.

In Bush v. Vera, the state of Texas planned to add additional congressional districts after the 1990 census. These redistricting measures were found to be unconstitutional and in the decision of this case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor referred back to her explanation of the harms of racial sorting from Shaw v. Reno: "At the same time that we combat the symptoms of racial polarization in politics, we must strive to eliminate unnecessary race-based state action that appears to endorse the disease". In 2017, Justice Anthony Kennedy reiterated this basic premise: "The harms that flow from racial sorting include being personal subjected to a racial classification as well as being represented by a legislator who believes his primary obligation is to represent only members of a particular racial group."

Later cases that built on Shaw focused on majority-minority districts, trying to answer if race can be used to redistrict districts. After Miller v. Johnson ruled that Georgia used "race for its own sake and not other districting principles", the legal analysis shifted to focus more on the legislature's "predominant motive" than district shape. The Court held that when race is a predominant factor in redistricting courts must apply the standard of strict scrutiny. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections explained further what is allowed under the strict scrutiny standard when compliance with the VRA is offered as a compelling state interest. Paul Clement, who was defending Virginia's redistricting in Bethune Hill, said in his argument that "People are bringing junior varsity dilution claims under the guise of calling them Shaw claims, and I think it's really distorted the law."

North Carolina's black majority district was challenged again in the 2001 case, Easley v. Cromartie. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled that party dominance was the predominant factor in drawing the challenged district lines. In 2016 the Court in Cooper v. Harris once again considered whether the North Carolina congressional districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders; it was the fifth time the district had been challenged at the Supreme Court since the Shaw v. Reno decision. Richard Pildes commented that Harris and the Court's other recent racial gerrymandering cases signaled that the use of race in redistricting was becoming more difficult to justify under strict scrutiny.

Controversies

There have been controversies and misinterpretations associated with Shaw v. Reno. Shaw fails to give criteria for an irregular drawing. It is, therefore, unclear how to prove when a shape is bizarre enough to constitute a clear racial motive, making it hard for courts to decide on rulings. As a result, it is possible for courts to interpret Shaw differently. For example, a Georgia court ruled that a district of "average appearance" was invalidated, but North Carolina's snake-like shaped district which could be described as irregular was upheld. There are many discrepancies that each judge must take into account when using Shaw v. Reno as a precedent. In addition to being unclear, Shaw has the ability to disenfranchise minorities. In Reynold v. Sims, the phrase "people, not trees of pastures, vote" can be applied to Shaw, as people, not highways, vote. Despite this, voter rights are being controlled by district shapes in the redistricting process. Shaw v. Reno places a lot of importance on the actual lines drawn, rather than who they contain. This outlook has the potential to disenfranchise minorities, as courts may place more importance on the shape of the district, rather than the underrepresented people.

See also

• Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964): Earlier Georgia congressional redistricting case
• Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52 (1964)
• Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
• Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996)
• Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999)
• Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001)
• Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003): Georgia State Senate redistricting case
• League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)
• Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509

Further reading

• Aleinikoff, T. Alexander; Issacharoff, Samuel (1993). "Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after Shaw v. Reno". Michigan Law Review. 92 (3): 588–651. doi:10.2307/1289796. ISSN 0026-2234. JSTOR 1289796.
• Blumstein, James F. (1994). "Racial Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution: Shaw v. Reno in Doctrinal Context". Rutgers Law Journal. 26: 517. ISSN 0277-318X.
• Parker, Frank R. (1995). "Shaw v. Reno: A Constitutional Setback for Minority Representation". PS: Political Science and Politics. 28 (1): 47–50. doi:10.2307/420580. JSTOR 420580. S2CID 153583115.
• McCarty, Nolan; Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (2009). "Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?". American Journal of Political Science. 53 (3): 666–680. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00393.x.
• Whitaker, L. Paige (April 13, 2015). "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview". Congressional Research Service.

External links

• Text of Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio) vLex
• Google Scholar