Shaw v. Reno

1993-06-28

Headline: North Carolina’s oddly shaped, race-based congressional district is allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional, with the Court saying such lines may unlawfully segregate voters and require strict judicial review.

Holding: The Court holds that voters may challenge an unusually shaped, race-based redistricting plan under the Equal Protection Clause because such a plan can be so irregular on its face that it segregates voters by race and requires strict scrutiny.

Real World Impact:

Allows citizens to sue over oddly shaped, race-based districts.
Requires states to justify race-based lines with strong evidence.
Could force redrawn maps and more court review of redistricting.

Topics: race and voting, redistricting maps, voting rights, court challenges

Summary

Background

After the 1990 census gave North Carolina a new congressional seat, the State Legislature first drew one majority-black district. The U.S. Attorney General objected under the Voting Rights Act, so the Legislature enacted a revised plan that created a second majority-black district placed up along I-85. That second district, called District 12 in the opinion, is unusually long and narrow and winds through many counties. Five North Carolina voters sued, saying the map was a racial gerrymander. The federal district court dismissed their claim, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the voters had a legal claim at all. The majority said yes: a redistricting plan that is so bizarre on its face can be reasonably understood only as an effort to separate voters by race. Such a facially irregular map can state a claim under the Constitution’s Equal Protection rule (the rule that bars states from making race-based distinctions). If the claim stands, the lower court must decide whether the State had a compelling reason and whether the map was narrowly tailored to that reason.

Real world impact

The decision allows citizens to bring constitutional challenges when state maps look like they were drawn mainly by race. It puts pressure on legislatures to explain race-based line drawing and means courts must closely review those explanations. The ruling is not a final finding that North Carolina’s map is unlawful; it only says the claim can proceed and must be examined on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented, arguing this decision departs from prior cases that require proof of harmful effects (not just odd shapes) and warning the new rule will unsettle how race is considered in redistricting.