Shaw v. Reno addressed the constitutionality of district shapes on concerns about what?

• A. Racial gerrymandering
• B. Partisan gerrymandering
• C. The presence of an apparent attempt to separate voters racially
• D. Population equality requirements

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how race factors into drawing electoral districts and the constitutional limits on that. Shaw v. Reno examined districts that were oddly shaped in a way that seemed designed to separate voters by race in order to influence election outcomes. The Supreme Court said such racial considerations raise serious equal protection concerns and can be unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. That focus—the appearance and reality of dividing voters by race in map drawing—is the core point the decision targets.

This is why describing the concern as an apparent attempt to separate voters racially best fits. It captures the essence of the ruling: race-based districting can violate equal protection. It’s not primarily about partisan advantage or simply about making districts population-balanced, even though those are general redistricting issues.