Is Gerrymandering Legal? | Shaw v. Reno

Overview of North Carolina Case (1990)

  • Issue: Lack of African American representation in Congress despite 20% of the population being African American.

  • Historical context: Only 4 African Americans elected to the U.S. House from North Carolina since the Civil War.

  • Post-1990 census: North Carolina gains a new congressional district.

  • State legislature's action: Creates district primarily composed of African Americans to ensure representation.

Government Response

  • U.S. Department of Justice rejection: Attorney General Janet Reno denies the proposed district, insisting on another district for minorities' representation under the Voting Rights Act.

  • Revised district: State legislature redraws maps to create a second district promoting African American interests.

District Design

  • Oddly shaped district: New districts are irregular, stretching 160 miles along Interstate 85, leading to community dislocation.

  • Outcome: In 1992, both newly created districts elect African Americans for the first time in the 20th century.

Gerrymandering Defined

  • Definition: Gerrymandering refers to district boundary manipulation to favor one group or disadvantage another.

  • Historical note: Named after Elbridge Gerry, whose district shape resembled a salamander.

Legal Challenge

  • Plaintiffs: Five North Carolina residents led by Ruth Shaw challenge District 12, claiming it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

  • District Court Ruling: Lawsuit dismissed based on prior case law (United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh v. Carey).

Supreme Court Proceedings

  • Appeal to the Supreme Court: Oral arguments heard on April 20, 1993.

  • Key argument: Whether redistricting violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

  • Defense: Reno's team argued for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 promoting minority-majority districts as affirmative action.

Supreme Court Decision

  • Ruling date: June 28, 1993.

  • Decision: Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Shaw, sending the case back for reassessment based on more than race alone.

Implications of the Ruling

  • Constitutional significance: Established that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, setting limits on how race can be applied in districting.

  • Dissenting opinions: Justices expressed support for gerrymandering intended to help historically underrepresented groups but acknowledged potential risks.

Continued Issues in Gerrymandering

  • Current situation: Partisan gerrymandering remains prevalent in America.

  • Notable quote: Arnold Schwarzenegger emphasizes the need for reform against gerrymandering, criticizing the political manipulation of districts.

Conclusion

  • Reflection on the ruling: Shaw v. Reno is a landmark case in addressing racial gerrymandering; the need for continued examination of gerrymandering's effects remains relevant.