Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. [1] After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district.
506 U.S. 447 (1993) quantum of proof required for a claim of attempted monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act: Shaw v. Reno: 506 U.S. 630 (1993) appropriateness of considering race in redistricting Reno v. Flores: 507 U.S. 292 (1993) procedures for detaining juvenile aliens awaiting deportation Saudi Arabia v. Nelson: 507 U.S ...
Case name Citation Date decided Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist. 509 U.S. 1: 1993: Helling v. McKinney: 509 U.S. 25: 1993: Reno v. Catholic Social Services ...
The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993), [3] holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different ...
Ruling against the district, the Court declared the district unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the interpretation in Shaw v. Reno (1993). The court noted that in some instances, "a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be ...
In Shaw v. Reno (1993) the Supreme Court 5-4 struck down North Carolina's attempt to create two majority minority districts. After hearing the case three more times, in Easley v. Cromartie (2001) the Supreme Court would 5-4 uphold the redistricting because the General Assembly's motivations had been purely political. [38]
In 1993, the original version of his district was thrown out in Shaw v. Reno, and was reconfigured to exclude its far western and far eastern portions. The new 12th, however, was no less Democratic than its predecessor, and Watt was reelected 10 more times.
The court first recognized the justiciability of affirmative "racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (1993). [181] In Miller v. Johnson (1995), [182] the court explained that a redistricting plan is constitutionally suspect if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. For race to ...