Shaw v. Reno dealt with concerns about redistricting that could violate equal protection by what practice?

• A. Equal protection by prohibiting racial gerrymandering
• B. Population parity concerns
• C. Allowing partisan gerrymandering
• D. Expanding state control over elections

Answer: (A)

Racial gerrymandering in redistricting violates equal protection. Shaw v. Reno focuses on drawing electoral districts where race is the predominant factor in how lines are drawn, creating oddly shaped districts meant to group voters by race. The Supreme Court ruled that using race in this way triggers strict scrutiny and can be unconstitutional, because it treats people differently based on race in the context of political boundaries, even if the aim is to improve minority representation. The key takeaway is that redistricting cannot be based primarily on race in a way that discriminates or treats individuals differently because of their race, even in the pursuit of a desirable political outcome.

Other options don’t fit because they concern population parity, partisan advantage, or expanding state control, none of which center on race-based discrimination in drawing district lines.