Question

Based on the Equal Protections clause, explain how the facts of Shaw v. Reno (1993) led to a similar holding in Miller v. Johnson (1995).

Answer 1

The facts of Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson both involved challenges to redistricting plans that resulted in racial gerrymandering. Shaw v. Reno established the standard for analyzing racial gerrymandering claims, and Miller v. Johnson applied that standard to invalidate a specific redistricting plan.

Step-by-step explanation:

The facts of Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995) both involve challenges to redistricting plans that resulted in racial gerrymandering. In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that race cannot be the predominant factor in determining district lines, unless there is a compelling government interest and the plan is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This case established the standard for analyzing racial gerrymandering claims.

In Miller v. Johnson, the Court applied the standard set in Shaw v. Reno and invalidated a redistricting plan in Georgia that packed African American voters into a single district. The Court held that the plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because race had been the predominant factor in drawing the district lines and it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Overall, the facts of Shaw v. Reno set the precedent for the Court's analysis of racial gerrymandering claims and the holding in Miller v. Johnson applied that precedent to invalidate a specific redistricting plan.