What was the central ruling of Shaw v. Reno (1993)?

• A. The Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional
• B. The poll tax was abolished
• C. Racial gerrymandering was declared unconstitutional
• D. Congressional districts must be of equal size

Answer: (C)

The central ruling of Shaw v. Reno (1993) was that racial gerrymandering, which involves drawing electoral district boundaries in a way that gives one racial group an advantage over others, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court determined that redistricting plans that intentionally segregate voters based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case emphasized that while states may consider race in the drawing of districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, they cannot do so in a manner that discriminates or leads to the marginalization of other groups.

The ruling set a precedent that has influenced how electoral districts are drawn, requiring a balance that avoids creating districts predominantly based on race without justifiable reasons. This landmark decision highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that equal protection under the law applies to all citizens regardless of their race.