Shaw v. Reno
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Shaw_v._Reno an entity of type: Thing
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a “majority-minority” Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, a North Carolina attorney, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause an
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Shaw v. Reno
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General et al.
xsd:integer
4519636
xsd:integer
1122953040
rdf:langString
On remand, Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 ; reversed, ; ; .
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Souter
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Blackmun
rdf:langString
Blackmun, Stevens
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461
xsd:integer
630
xsd:integer
509
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-20
xsd:integer
1993
rdf:langString
Shaw v. Reno,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-28
xsd:integer
1993
rdf:langString
Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General et al.
rdf:langString
Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
rdf:langString
Shaw v. Reno
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:integer
399
900
xsd:integer
515
548
xsd:integer
1995
2006
rdf:langString
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a “majority-minority” Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, a North Carolina attorney, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race. Shaw v Reno was an influential case and received backlash. Some southern states filed against majority-Black districts. This decision played a role in deciding many future cases, including Bush v. Vera and Miller v. Johnson. However, the phrasing of irregularly drawn districts has left room for much interpretation, letting judges use their opinions rather than relying on Shaw.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
29542