What was the decision of Shaw v Reno?
Asked by: Patricia Kerluke | Last update: September 22, 2023Score: 4.2/5 (26 votes)
In a 5-4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner), finding that it was, in fact, unlawful to gerrymander on the basis of race. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in which she explains the court's ruling.
What was the decision in Shaw v Reno quizlet?
The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
What was the ruling in Shaw v Reno AP Gov?
They came to this conclusion because there was nothing in the 14th or 15th amendment that said they could not redraw districts on race. Shaw: -Redistricting cannot be based on race alone. -Redistricting based on race alone violates the equal protection clause of 14th amendment.
Which of the following correctly describes the facts in Shaw v Reno?
Question: Which of the following correctly describes the facts in Shaw v. Reno (1993) ? Answer: Redistricting in order to confine minority voters to a majority in one district was challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What constitutional clause is common to both Bush v Vera and Shaw v Reno?
In both cases, the Supreme Court invalidated legislative districts on the basis that race was a factor in drawing the districts. The Court viewed these legislative districts as violations of the equal protection clause. Task C: Explain how the decision in Bush v.
Shaw v. Reno Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
What was the constitutional issue in Bush v Vera?
Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning racial gerrymandering, where racial minority majority-electoral districts were created during Texas' 1990 redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
What constitutional amendment is the Supreme Court deciding on in Baker v Carr Shaw v Reno?
Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases.
What is gerrymandering in simple terms?
In representative democracies, gerrymandering (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/, originally /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/) is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage for a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency.
Why is gerrymandering legal?
The Supreme Court held in Gaffney v. Cummings (1973) that bipartisan gerrymanders are constitutionally permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.
What is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court?
The majority opinion is an appellate opinion supporting the court's judgment (the result reached in the case) which receives a majority vote of the justices or judges hearing the case.
What happened in Shaw v. Reno for dummies?
The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, meaning that any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
What does it mean to have equal protection of the laws?
equal protection of the law. n. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law.
What is the 14th constitutional amendment?
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of ...
Where is affirmative action in the Constitution?
However, many legal scholars point to the underlying goal of the Fourteenth Amendment - eliminating oppression - as a justification for affirmative action programs. The Supreme Court has upheld this idea in several cases, including Adarand Constructors v. Pena and Grutter v. Bollinger.
What is the significance of the Baker v Carr case?
Carr (1962) established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions" outside the courts' jurisdiction.
What is a unified government quizlet?
Unified government. A government in which the same party controls both the white house and both houses of Congress.
What case made gerrymandering illegal?
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority-majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
Who controls gerrymandering?
In 25 states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state governor.
Is racial gerrymandering legal or illegal?
Unconstitutional racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. In the context of redistricting, federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering.
What best describes gerrymandering?
gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage over its rivals (political or partisan gerrymandering) or that dilutes the voting power of members of ethnic or linguistic minority groups (racial gerrymandering).
What is gerrymandering best defined as quizlet?
The drawing of legislative district boundaries to benefit a party, group, or incumbent.
What is the impact of Baker v Carr and Shaw v Reno?
This case decided that redistricting issues presented justiciable dispute therefore enabling federal courts to intervene in redistricting cases.
Which amendment has never been subject to Supreme Court?
The Third Amendment seems to have no direct constitutional relevance at present; indeed, not only is it the least litigated amendment in the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of it.
What was the right of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional?
Judicial Review
The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.