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.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999) List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532; References
In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court found that the complaint challenging a redistricting plan creating two unusually looking majority-minority congressional districts stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause, and thus remanded the case. The district court then held that the plan survived strict scrutiny and was constitutional.
Citing Shaw v. Reno , the majority concluded that strict scrutiny is required whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a concurrence, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens , Stephen G. Breyer , and David H. Souter .
AOL latest headlines, entertainment, sports, articles for business, health and world news.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission . [ 1 ]
The Ruth G. Shaw Stock Index From January 2008 to December 2012, if you bought shares in companies when Ruth G. Shaw joined the board, and sold them when she left, you would have a -17.6 percent return on your investment, compared to a -2.8 percent return from the S&P 500.
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent. [1]