Exploring Shaw v. Reno and Its Impact on AP Government

The video discusses the Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno, focusing on racial gerrymandering in North Carolina after the 1990 census. It explains the constitutional debate around the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, highlighting the court's decision that districts drawn solely based on race are unconstitutional. The case set a precedent for future racial gerrymandering cases, emphasizing the importance of not drawing districts to favor one race over another.

What was the main issue addressed in Shaw v. Reno?

• Partisan gerrymandering

• Campaign finance

• Voter ID laws

• Racial gerrymandering

What did the Justice Department suggest North Carolina do after reviewing their district plan?

• Attempt to create a second majority-black district

• Dissolve the existing majority-black district

• Create a third majority-black district

• Maintain the status quo

What does gerrymandering refer to?

• Drawing district lines without bias

• Redrawing district lines to favor a specific race

• The process of voting

• Redistricting based on population changes

What is the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering?

• Partisan is about election timing, racial is about district shapes

• Partisan favors a political party, racial favors a racial group

• There is no difference

• Racial is legal, but partisan is not

What constitutional principle was at stake in Shaw v. Reno?

• Freedom of speech

• Right to privacy

• Right to bear arms

• Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

What did Shaw's group argue in Shaw v. Reno?

• The districts were fairly drawn

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was outdated

• The equal protection clause was violated

• Racial gerrymandering was necessary

What was the role of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shaw v. Reno?

• It was irrelevant to the case

• It mandated district approval by the federal government

• It was found unconstitutional

• It supported the creation of majority-black districts

What was the Supreme Court's decision in Shaw v. Reno?

• Sent back to lower court for retrial

• Case was dismissed

• Against Reno

• In favor of Reno

Why is Shaw v. Reno significant?

• It ended partisan gerrymandering

• It set a precedent for racial gerrymandering cases

• It changed the way elections are held

• It introduced new voting laws

What precedent did Shaw v. Reno set?

• Districts can be drawn based on race

• Districts cannot be drawn only with the intent to gather those of the same race

• All districts must be redrawn every ten years

• Partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional