Transcription
Hey everybody. Welcome back. Shaw versus Reno is one of the most intimidating cases in AP Gov, but don't worry, we got this. Be sure to smash that like button as we begin. [Music]
Okay, so the most basic version of the facts is that North Carolina State Legislature created a bizarrely shaped majority-minority district specifically for the purpose of increasing black representation in Congress. They did this to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned discrimination in voting policies. A key provision of the law required jurisdictions with a history of electoral discrimination to obtain Federal approval of any changes in their electoral procedures, including redistricting or redrawing the Congressional maps. They had to show that the change isn't racially discriminatory.
So, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina submitted their redistricting plan following the 1990 census to the U.S. Justice Department. The Attorney General rejected the state's initial map because it should have included a second majority-minority district. 20% of the voting-age population in North Carolina was black; however, only one of the 12 districts was majority black. The state redrew the map, creating a second district with a black majority; however, it was very bizarrely shaped, and for long stretches, the district was no wider than a highway as it sought to connect different black neighborhoods while going around white neighborhoods. A group of white residents sued, claiming that the district was racially gerrymandered in violation of the 14th Amendment.
So the issue before the court was: Can state residents challenge in federal courts racially gerrymandered congressional districts? In a bitterly divided 5-4 ruling, the Court held that majority-minority districts created under the Voting Rights Act may be constitutionally challenged by voters if race is the only factor used in creating the district. This essentially meant that congressional districts cannot be drawn based only on race. The court reasoned that drawing a congressional district based only on race violated the equal protection clause and opposes the colorblind ideal of the Constitution.
Interestingly, the four justices in the losing side believed that districts should be upheld because of the equal protection clause. The difference is in how each side interprets that clause. Does the equal protection clause ban all racial distinctions by governments, or is it only banning racial distinctions intended to harm minority rights? The majority opinion attempts to move closer to the colorblind ideal, as Sandra Day O'Connor said that districts drawn based only on race threatened to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters, adding that such policies reinforce the belief that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. It doesn't go so far as to say that states can't ever take race into account and even somewhat confusingly says that race can be a factor, but not the factor in drawing a congressional district. But it determined that using race as a factor when redistricting would be subject to strict scrutiny. This is the highest level of judicial review; most policies reviewed with strict scrutiny get struck down because they are only allowed if the government can prove that it is narrowly tailored and necessary for compelling government interest.
Basically, the court made it much, much tougher for governments to make racial distinctions, even if the purpose is to increase minority representation. This decision struck a major blow to the Voting Rights Act. Remember, the reason the district was drawn that way was to increase minority representation; that's no longer allowed if race is the only reason a district was drawn a particular way. The dissenting opinion by Justice White pointed out that even with the second majority-black district, that black residents in North Carolina would still have been proportionally underrepresented, going so far as to say that the idea that the appellant's rights were violated was fiction. Justice Stevens' dissent made explicit the race-conscious view that the equal protection clause only prohibits racial distinctions that harm a minority group, but that racial distinction should be permissible when used to increase minority power.
We'll talk more about the colorblind and race-conscious views on unit 3 when we talk about affirmative action. Alright, that's it for this one. Until next time, this has been a La Money Production. Thanks again for watching. If you haven't already subscribed, I mean, what are you waiting for? Go ahead and smash that like button and do yourself a favor and check out the ultimate review packet I created—an amazing resource to get you through AP Gov. It has tons of practice, study guides, exclusive videos, and more, and I will see you in the next video.