Question

What is a result of cases like Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995), which outlaw only race-based gerrymandering?

Answer 1

The result of cases like Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995) that outlaw only race-based gerrymandering is the prevention of manipulating district boundaries for partisan gain and the promotion of equality and fair representation for all citizens.

Step-by-step explanation:

The result of cases like Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995) that outlaw only race-based gerrymandering is that it addresses the issue of manipulating district boundaries for partisan gain. In these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be the primary consideration when drawing district lines. This helps to ensure fair representation for all citizens and prevents the dilution of voting power based on race.

By outlawing race-based gerrymandering, these cases have contributed to the fight against racial discrimination in the electoral process. They have set a precedent that district lines should not be drawn solely to benefit one racial group over another. This promotes equality and protects the rights of minority voters.

Overall, these cases have played a significant role in shaping the standards for redistricting and have helped to guard against unfair manipulation of district boundaries based on race.

Answer 2

The cases of Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995) resulted in the outlawing of only race-based gerrymandering. The Supreme Court held that the redrawing of electoral districts based solely on race, without a compelling justification, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that while race cannot be the sole factor in drawing district boundaries, other considerations such as political affiliation, incumbency, or community interests can still be taken into account. These cases established that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing electoral districts, but they did not outlaw all forms of gerrymandering.