Shaw v. Hunt

The case of Shaw v. Hunt boiled down to the difficult question of how a state may make sure that voter districts represent minority populations without infringing on the rights of the rest of the voters. Redistricting plans should 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 to either 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 was not "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling state interest." Thus, the Court determined that the plan was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.