Ad
related to: shaw v reno
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.
Hunt. Shaw v. Hunt. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This case and its predecessor, Shaw v. Reno, concerned North Carolina's congressional redistricting plans. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Hunt that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection ...
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. 349 (1993) jurisdiction in an action based upon a "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Cincinnati v.
Georgia's congressional redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 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 ...
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 ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993), [60] 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 ...
The Court ruled in Shaw v. Reno (1993) that if a redistricting plan is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race '", it must be held to a "strict scrutiny" standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. [further explanation needed] The Court has since struck down redistricting plans for racial gerrymandering in ...