Shaw v. Reno (1993) involved:

• A. A standard district with no constitutional issues.
• B. The district shaped unusually, likely drawn to increase minority representation.
• C. A tax policy dispute.
• D. A case about campaign contributions.

Answer: (C)

Shaw v. Reno focuses on racial redistricting and how the Constitution treats drawing voting boundaries when race is a prime factor. In this case, a North Carolina district was drawn in an unusually odd shape that appeared designed to ensure minority representation. The Supreme Court ruled that redistricting based predominantly on race triggers strict scrutiny and can be unconstitutional if the district’s shape and creation show that race was the main goal, rather than legitimate political considerations. The decision established that when race is the deciding factor in drawing districts, it must be justified by a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored, not simply a political maneuver to influence outcomes.

The other options don’t fit this central issue. It wasn’t about a standard district with no constitutional issues, a tax policy dispute, or campaign contributions. The case is about racial gerrymandering and equal protection.