Shaw v. Reno
1993 — Racial Gerrymandering and Equal Protection
Constitutional Clause
14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) — Racial Gerrymandering
Did North Carolina's racially gerrymandered district — designed to create a majority-minority district — raise a valid constitutional issue under the Equal Protection Clause?
Memory Tricks
"Shaw = Shape Matters" — Shaw v. Reno established that bizarrely shaped districts drawn primarily for racial reasons are constitutionally suspect. If the shape only makes sense as racial separation, it violates equal protection.
"Majority-Minority District = Complicated" — Shaw didn't ban majority-minority districts entirely. It said when race is the PREDOMINANT factor in drawing boundaries — to the point of ignoring all other traditional criteria — it must survive strict scrutiny.
"Shaw = Reverse Baker" — Where Baker said federal courts CAN review apportionment, Shaw said racial considerations in drawing districts face strict constitutional scrutiny.
Facts of the Case
North Carolina redrew its congressional districts to include two majority-Black districts, one of which was extremely narrow — in some places only as wide as the interstate highway along which it stretched. Five North Carolina white voters challenged the district's constitutionality, arguing its only purpose was to ensure election of Black representatives. The case raised whether federal courts could review state racial gerrymandering.
Holding / Decision
Vote: 5-4 (Rehnquist Court)
The Rehnquist Court ruled 5-4 that federal courts can hear challenges to racial gerrymandering. When a district's shape is so bizarre that it can only be explained as an effort to segregate voters by race, it triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The unusual shape suggested the district exceeded what was necessary to avoid racial imbalances.
Key Principle
"Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too long, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin."
Paired Case
Gill v. Whitford, 2017
Wisconsin Republicans gerrymandered state boundaries to enhance Republican victories while maintaining population and minority protections. The Court did not resolve party gerrymandering, but held that challengers must show personal loss of voting rights related to racial or constitutional injury. Party gerrymandering continues to await further resolution.
AP Exam Connections
Foundational Doc
U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment)
Equal Protection Clause triggers strict scrutiny for racial classifications
Related Case
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Baker established federal court jurisdiction over apportionment; Shaw applied it to racial gerrymandering
Unit 3
Gerrymandering and redistricting
Shaw is the key case on racial gerrymandering — know the distinction from partisan gerrymandering
Unit 5
Civil rights — voting
Shaw protects against racial sorting while Baker protects population equality
Writing Practice
AP-Style FRQ Prompt
In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court held that bizarrely shaped majority-minority districts could violate the Equal Protection Clause. Explain how the ruling both protects and complicates minority voting rights.
Tip: Shaw is about RACIAL gerrymandering — drawing districts predominantly based on race. Distinguish from partisan gerrymandering (party-based), which is still permitted under current law. On the AP exam, contrast Shaw with Baker v. Carr and use both together to explain the limits on state redistricting.
Key Takeaways
- Racial gerrymandering (using race as predominant factor) is subject to strict scrutiny
- Bizarrely shaped districts that only make sense as racial sorting are constitutionally suspect
- Majority-minority districts are NOT automatically banned — only those where race was the predominant criterion
- Contrast: partisan gerrymandering is not prohibited by current SCOTUS doctrine