Shaw v. Reno addressed the central issue of racial gerrymandering by examining whether:

• A. Racial considerations are never allowed in districting.
• B. Districts must be perfectly compact.
• C. The Voting Rights Act requires minority representation in all districts.
• D. Racial considerations in redistricting can raise Equal Protection concerns and may require judicial scrutiny.

Answer: (D)

The central point Shaw v. Reno tests is how race in drawing legislative districts interacts with the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that racial considerations in redistricting can raise serious Equal Protection concerns and trigger strict judicial scrutiny when race becomes the predominant factor in how districts are carved out. In the case, a highly irregular district that appeared drawn to achieve a particular racial composition suggested an unconstitutional use of race, so the plan needed compelling justification and narrow tailoring to pass constitutional muster. This doesn’t bar considering race altogether, but it does require that race not be the main excuse for drawing lines and that any such use withstand strict scrutiny.

That’s why the best answer is the one stating that racial considerations in redistricting can raise Equal Protection concerns and may require judicial scrutiny. The other options misstate the framework: race is not categorically banned in districting, compactness is not the sole standard, and the Voting Rights Act does not obligate minority representation in every district.