Shaw v. Reno (1993) — Mr. Rogers AP Gov

Unit 5

Shaw v. Reno

509 U.S. 630 · June 28, 1993 · Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

📋

BACKGROUND

After the 1990 census, North Carolina gained a second congressional seat. The Justice Department, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, pressured North Carolina to create at least one majority-Black congressional district to give Black voters a better chance of electing representatives of their choice. North Carolina drew two majority-Black districts. The 12th district was particularly striking — a narrow, snaking corridor about 160 miles long and in some places no wider than the I-85 interstate, connecting Black neighborhoods across several counties. Critics described it as looking like a "bug splattered on a windshield."

Ruth Shaw and four other white North Carolina voters sued Attorney General Janet Reno, arguing the district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The question: can race be the predominant factor in drawing a congressional district, even if the purpose is to increase minority representation?

❓

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

Does a congressional district drawn with race as the predominant factor violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment — even when the purpose is to create a majority-minority district to increase minority political representation?

⚖️

THE RULING

✓ Racial gerrymandering claims ARE justiciable — 5 to 4

Majority: O'Connor · Rehnquist · Scalia · Kennedy · Thomas | Dissent: White · Blackmun · Stevens · Souter

"A reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries... bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid."

The Court didn't rule the district unconstitutional on the merits — it sent the case back to the lower courts with instructions to apply strict scrutiny. But the principle was established: when race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, the district is presumptively unconstitutional and must survive strict scrutiny (a compelling government interest pursued through narrowly tailored means). Complying with the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest — but a district doesn't have to be so bizarrely shaped that it can only be explained by race.

📐

RULE ESTABLISHED

The Shaw Rule — Racial Predominance Triggers Strict Scrutiny

When race is the predominant factor in drawing a congressional or legislative district, the district is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. To survive, the state must show: (1) a compelling government interest (such as Voting Rights Act compliance), and (2) that the district is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. A district whose bizarre shape can only be explained by racial considerations will not survive strict scrutiny without this justification. This applies whether the racial gerrymandering helps or hurts minority voters.

⚡

THE DISSENT — JUSTICE WHITE

Justice White (joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Souter)

The dissenters argued the majority was ignoring the actual harm that apportionment cases involve. Traditional Equal Protection cases involve a majority group diluting minority voting strength — here, white voters were not denied the right to vote, not prevented from running for office, and not disadvantaged in any concrete way. The majority-Black district simply gave Black voters a better chance to elect their preferred candidate, which is exactly what the Voting Rights Act requires. The "political apartheid" rhetoric was inflammatory and unsupported — creating a majority-minority district is categorically different from enforcing racial segregation.

🔗

LEGACY & CONNECTIONS

Baker v. Carr
1962Baker made apportionment justiciable — courts can hear districting challenges. Shaw built on this by specifying that race-based districts trigger strict scrutiny, not just Equal Protection review generally.
Miller v. Johnson
1995Clarified Shaw — race must be the "predominant" factor, not just a factor. States can consider race without triggering strict scrutiny as long as traditional redistricting principles (compactness, contiguity, community of interest) are the primary drivers.
Rucho v. Common Cause
2019Partisan gerrymandering is NOT justiciable — courts cannot hear challenges to maps drawn purely for partisan advantage. Shaw applies only to racial gerrymandering; parties can gerrymander for partisan purposes without Equal Protection limits.
Voting Rights Act
TensionShaw creates tension with the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to create majority-minority districts in certain circumstances. States must navigate between Voting Rights Act obligations (requiring minority districts) and Shaw's limits (can't make race the predominant factor). This tension is still litigated every redistricting cycle.

EXAM FOCUS

Shaw is almost always paired with Baker v. Carr in FRQs about redistricting. Know the key distinction: Baker = can courts hear these cases (yes). Shaw = when does racial gerrymandering violate Equal Protection (when race is predominant, strict scrutiny applies). Also know that Shaw applies even when the purpose is to HELP minorities — the Equal Protection Clause is colorblind.

Quick Facts

Vote5 to 4

ProvisionEqual Protection · 14th Amendment

The Key Distinction

Racial GerrymanderingRace as predominant factor → strict scrutiny → usually unconstitutional

Partisan GerrymanderingParty as predominant factor → NOT justiciable (Rucho 2019) → courts can't stop it

Common Mistakes

✗Saying Shaw prohibits all majority-minority districts — it prohibits race as the PREDOMINANT factor, not as any factor.

✗Thinking partisan gerrymandering is also covered by Shaw — Rucho (2019) said courts can't touch partisan gerrymandering.

✗Confusing Shaw with Voting Rights Act requirements — states still must create majority-minority districts in some circumstances.