Petitioner
Ruth O. Shaw, et al.; James Arthur Pope, et al.
Respondent
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the state of North Carolina created an unconstitutional racially gerrymandered district, which may violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robinson O. Everett (Shaw), Thomas A. Farr (Pope)
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 June 1996
Decision
The district court decision was reversed.
Significance
The case of Shaw v. Hunt raised many important issues regarding to what extent it is permissible for a state to use racial classifications as the primary consideration when drawing majority-minority voter districts. The ramifications of the Voting Rights Act, Sections 2 and 5, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause were carefully considered with respect to thealleged racial gerrymandering discussed in this case.
Case Background
In the fall of 1991, the North Carolina state legislature proposed a redistricting plan which contained only one black majority district. The plan was rejected, and a revised plan with a second majority minority district was then pre-cleared by the attorney general. Five residents of North Carolina filed suit in district court. They claimed that, "The revised plan created a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution'sFourteenth Amendment." The case was dismissed by the district court for "failing to state a constitutional claim." An appeal was then made to the U.S. Supreme Court (Shaw v. Reno), in which the district court's decision wasreversed, as the Court found that the residents had a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case was remanded back to the district court to see if there were governmental reasons for the odd shape andsize of the new district. The district court then found that the plan was constitutional and "did not violate the voters' equal protection rights, as theplan was narrowly tailored to further the state's compelling interests." Onceagain, an appeal was made by the five residents to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a suit brought against James B. Hunt, Jr., then governor of North Carolina(Shaw v. Hunt).
Question of Racial Gerrymandering or Minority Voter Representation
The case of Shaw v. Hunt boiled down to the difficult question of howa state may make sure that voter districts represent minority populations without infringing on the rights of the rest of the voters. Redistricting plansshould draw districts to follow principles of compactness, contiguousness, and community of interest. The plan in this case, as argued by Robinson O. Everett for Shaw, seemed to "carry a message" that the second majority-minority district was created by using racial classifications--this being the only logical reason to explain the odd shape of that district. Everett also argued that the district in question was not an example of either narrow or broad tailoring, but rather "no tailoring," and proposed that there was a possible violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to the apparent use of racial classifications in drawing the district. The counsel arguing for the respondents maintained that minorities must be given the opportunity to elect and be represented fairly, and that the district court was correct in deciding that the plan was constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the plan was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, reversing the district court's decision. The majority opinion of the Court was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was joined by Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. First, the issue of "standing" was addressed. To be able to raise the suit, the petitioners needed toeither reside in the district in which racial gerrymandering allegedly occurred, or show that they were assigned to their district according to their race. The Court found that only two of the five residents had "standing," Ruth O.Shaw and Melvin Schimm. Because of the unusual shape of the district in question, and the Court's opinion concerning any of three different compelling interests, it was found that the plan did not "survive strict scrutiny" and wasnot "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling state interest." Thus, the Court determined that the plan was in violation of the Equal Protection Clauseof the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Different Opinion
A dissenting opinion was written by Stevens, who was joined by Ginsburg and Breyer on the second and third points. In it, he opined that 1) no person showed that they had been harmed more than another because of their race; 2) thatstrict scrutiny should only be applied when a state does not adhere to traditional districting principles; and 3) that the evidence showed other political reasons that caused the district's unusual shape. Justice Souter had already expressed his views in Bush v. Vera, where he addressed "a basic misconception about the relation between race and districting principles".
Impact
The cases of Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt explore areas central to the constitutional issues of civil rights, voting rights, racial discrimination, and voter representation. While race can be a consideration when drawing voter districts, racial classifications may not be the dominant factor,unless a state can prove other compelling reasons that will withstand strictscrutiny. It is certain that these cases will be noted in many future proceedings, as civil rights issues continue to be debated and contested in the courts.
Related Cases
Ruth O. Shaw, et al.; James Arthur Pope, et al.
Respondent
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the state of North Carolina created an unconstitutional racially gerrymandered district, which may violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robinson O. Everett (Shaw), Thomas A. Farr (Pope)
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 June 1996
Decision
The district court decision was reversed.
Significance
The case of Shaw v. Hunt raised many important issues regarding to what extent it is permissible for a state to use racial classifications as the primary consideration when drawing majority-minority voter districts. The ramifications of the Voting Rights Act, Sections 2 and 5, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause were carefully considered with respect to thealleged racial gerrymandering discussed in this case.
Case Background
In the fall of 1991, the North Carolina state legislature proposed a redistricting plan which contained only one black majority district. The plan was rejected, and a revised plan with a second majority minority district was then pre-cleared by the attorney general. Five residents of North Carolina filed suit in district court. They claimed that, "The revised plan created a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution'sFourteenth Amendment." The case was dismissed by the district court for "failing to state a constitutional claim." An appeal was then made to the U.S. Supreme Court (Shaw v. Reno), in which the district court's decision wasreversed, as the Court found that the residents had a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case was remanded back to the district court to see if there were governmental reasons for the odd shape andsize of the new district. The district court then found that the plan was constitutional and "did not violate the voters' equal protection rights, as theplan was narrowly tailored to further the state's compelling interests." Onceagain, an appeal was made by the five residents to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a suit brought against James B. Hunt, Jr., then governor of North Carolina(Shaw v. Hunt).
Question of Racial Gerrymandering or Minority Voter Representation
The case of Shaw v. Hunt boiled down to the difficult question of howa state may make sure that voter districts represent minority populations without infringing on the rights of the rest of the voters. Redistricting plansshould draw districts to follow principles of compactness, contiguousness, and community of interest. The plan in this case, as argued by Robinson O. Everett for Shaw, seemed to "carry a message" that the second majority-minority district was created by using racial classifications--this being the only logical reason to explain the odd shape of that district. Everett also argued that the district in question was not an example of either narrow or broad tailoring, but rather "no tailoring," and proposed that there was a possible violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to the apparent use of racial classifications in drawing the district. The counsel arguing for the respondents maintained that minorities must be given the opportunity to elect and be represented fairly, and that the district court was correct in deciding that the plan was constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the plan was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, reversing the district court's decision. The majority opinion of the Court was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was joined by Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. First, the issue of "standing" was addressed. To be able to raise the suit, the petitioners needed toeither reside in the district in which racial gerrymandering allegedly occurred, or show that they were assigned to their district according to their race. The Court found that only two of the five residents had "standing," Ruth O.Shaw and Melvin Schimm. Because of the unusual shape of the district in question, and the Court's opinion concerning any of three different compelling interests, it was found that the plan did not "survive strict scrutiny" and wasnot "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling state interest." Thus, the Court determined that the plan was in violation of the Equal Protection Clauseof the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Different Opinion
A dissenting opinion was written by Stevens, who was joined by Ginsburg and Breyer on the second and third points. In it, he opined that 1) no person showed that they had been harmed more than another because of their race; 2) thatstrict scrutiny should only be applied when a state does not adhere to traditional districting principles; and 3) that the evidence showed other political reasons that caused the district's unusual shape. Justice Souter had already expressed his views in Bush v. Vera, where he addressed "a basic misconception about the relation between race and districting principles".
Impact
The cases of Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt explore areas central to the constitutional issues of civil rights, voting rights, racial discrimination, and voter representation. While race can be a consideration when drawing voter districts, racial classifications may not be the dominant factor,unless a state can prove other compelling reasons that will withstand strictscrutiny. It is certain that these cases will be noted in many future proceedings, as civil rights issues continue to be debated and contested in the courts.
Related Cases
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
- Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
User Comments Add a comment…