unit 2 court cases: Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno

Whether federal courts could hear cases challenging the way states drew their legislative districts.

What is the basic issue in Baker v. Carr (1962)?

Tennessee had not redrawn its state legislative districts for decades, even though the population had shifted significantly. This meant that some rural areas had much more representation than more populated areas.

(Baker v. Carr) What was happening in Tennessee?

A person's vote in a heavily populated district had less influence than a person's vote in a sparsely populated district.

(Baker v. Carr) Why did the lack of redistricting cause problems?

Charles Baker and other Tennessee voters challenged the state's legislative districting system.

Who brought the Baker v. Carr case?

The 14th Amendment.

What constitutional amendment is most important in Baker v. Carr?

The Equal Protection Clause.

What specific clause of the 14th Amendment is involved in Baker v. Carr?

States cannot deny people the equal protection of the laws.

What does the Equal Protection Clause say?

The voters argued that unequal representation meant their votes were not being treated equally.

(Baker v. Carr) How did the Equal Protection Clause relate to redistricting?

Article III and whether it was an issue for the elected branches, not the courts (political question doctrine).

What other constitutional concept is extremely important in Baker v. Carr?

That redistricting was a political question, so federal courts should not get involved.

What did Tennessee argue in Baker v. Carr?

The Court ruled that challenges to legislative redistricting could be heard by federal courts. The issue was justiciable, meaning courts could legally decide it.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Baker v. Carr?

No, Baker established that federal courts could hear redistricting cases.

Did Baker v. Carr establish "one person, one vote"?

Redistricting challenges are justiciable and can be reviewed by federal courts.

What is the main holding of Baker v. Carr?

It increased the role of the federal judiciary in redistricting by allowing courts to review claims that legislative districts violated constitutional protections.

What is the AP Gov takeaway from Baker v. Carr?

Whether a state could draw congressional districts primarily based on race in a way that created extremely irregular districts.

What is the basic issue in Shaw v. Reno?

North Carolina.

What state was involved in Shaw v. Reno?

North Carolina created a second majority-Black congressional district.

What did North Carolina do that caused Shaw v. Reno?

Its boundaries were extremely irregular and were drawn in a way that made race a major factor in determining who was placed in the district.

(Shaw v. Reno) Why did the new district become controversial?

racial gerrymandering

What type of gerrymandering does Shaw v. Reno address?

Drawing electoral district boundaries in a way where race is the main factor in deciding which voters are included in particular districts.

What is racial gerrymandering?

Fourteenth Amendment

What constitutional amendment does Shaw v. Reno involve?

The Equal Protection Clause.

What specific clause of the 14th Amendment does Shaw v. Reno address?

The Court held that voters can challenge a districting plan when race is used as the dominant factor in drawing district boundaries because government must provide equal protection to individuals regardless of race.

Why does the Equal Protection Clause matter in Shaw v. Reno?

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs could bring an Equal Protection Clause challenge to the racially drawn districts.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Shaw v. Reno?

No. The Court did not establish an absolute ban on considering race when drawing districts; they just said it can’t be the ONLY factor.

(Shaw v. Reno) Did the Court say that race can NEVER be considered when drawing districts?

Strict scrutiny.

(Shaw v. Reno) What level of scrutiny applies to racial gerrymandering?

The government must show that the racial classification serves a justifiable governmental interest and is specifically made to achieve that interest.

What does strict scrutiny mean?

No. It is specifically about racial gerrymandering.

Is Shaw v. Reno about partisan gerrymandering?

The case arose in the context of efforts related to the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court's constitutional holding was based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Is Shaw v. Reno about the Voting Rights Act?