Scotus Analysis Shaw V Reno 1993 Docx Name Of The Case Shawођ

Scotus Analysis Shaw V Reno 1993 Docx Name Of The Reno, 509 u.s. 630 (1993) appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that north carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification. october term, 1992. syllabus. View scotus analysis shaw v. reno 1993.docx from social studies soc507 508 at abraham lincoln high school. name of the case: shaw v. reno year decided: 1993 facts (who did what, and how the case.

Shaw V Reno 1993 Google Docs Pdf Case Background 1 Identify The Ask the chatbot a question ask the chatbot a question shaw v. reno, legal case in which the u.s. supreme court ruled (5–4) on june 28, 1993, that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be adequately explained except as examples of racial gerrymandering, or efforts to segregate voters on the basis of race, can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause of the. 5–4 decision for shawmajority opinion by sandra day o'connor. yes. the court held that although north carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. Following is the case brief for shaw v. reno, 509 u.s. 630 (1993) case summary of shaw v. reno: the state of north carolina, in response to the u.s. attorney general’s objection that it had only one majority black congressional district, created a second majority black district. five white north carolina voters sued, alleging that the state. Elianna spitzer. updated on november 23, 2020. in shaw v. reno (1993), the u.s. supreme court questioned the use of racial gerrymandering in north carolina's reapportionment plan. the court found that race could not be the deciding factor when drawing districts. fast facts: shaw v. reno. case argued: april 20, 1993. decision issued: june 28, 1993.