Shaw v. Reno constitutional issue:

• A. Whether racial gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause.
• B. Whether districting plan violated the Voting Rights Act.
• C. Whether the districting plan violated the First Amendment.
• D. Whether the district's shape and purpose raised Equal Protection concerns due to race.

Answer: (D)

Race-based redistricting and how the Equal Protection Clause limits it is the core idea. Shaw v. Reno asks whether drawing legislative districts primarily based on race blocks equal protection, even when the aim might be to improve minority representation. The key takeaway is that when a district’s boundaries and the motivation for creating it reveal that race is the predominant factor, the plan faces strict scrutiny under equal protection. The court pointed to the district’s bizarre, elongated shape as evidence that race was the central factor in its creation, not legitimate considerations like geography or community interests. Because such a plan isn’t narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, it violates equal protection. The case sits at the intersection of race-conscious districting and constitutional guarantees, showing that odd shapes used to segregate by race undermine constitutional equality.

This isn’t primarily about the Voting Rights Act or about the First Amendment. Those topics can come up in discussions of redistricting, but Shaw focuses on whether race was the decisive driver in drawing districts and whether that triggers equal-protection scrutiny.