hey there and welcome back to heimlich's history in this video we're looking at another one of your required supreme court cases in the ap government curriculum and that means it's time to look at shavi arena so if you're ready to get them brain cows milked gerrymandering style well then let's get to it okay so first as always let's begin with the facts of the case back in 1990 none of north carolina's representatives were black and that was a problem because 20 of the state's population was black so when it was time for reinforcement after the 1990 census north carolina drew one district which was majority black and then submitted it to the justice department for review and then upon that review the justice department said we think you can get a second majority black district if you try real hard and that's what they did and the second majority black district came out looking like this just in case you don't study the shapes of congressional districts in your spare time you might not realize that this district is to use the technical political science term wonky as hicks and when you see a district like that it's an example of gerrymandering now if you don't know what that means let me just give you a quick definition because you have to know it to understand this case gerrymandering is when congressional districts are drawn to favor one group over another now partisan gerrymandering is when districts are drawn to favor one political party over another and i explained that in another video like this suppose you have 50 people divided into five districts and 40 percent of republicans and 60 percent are democrats if you draw the districts like this democrats will always win these three districts and republicans will always win these two districts but if you draw the districts like this democrats will win in every district either way more districts will be voting democrat then republican but suppose some wily republican draws the districts like this then look what happens republicans will hold majorities in three of the districts and now democrats only have two so that's what we call partisan gerrymandering where districts are redrawn to favor one party over another but javi reno isn't a case about partisan gerrymandering but rather racial gerrymandering which is when districts are drawn to favor one racial group over another now the only reason any of this was an issue is because of a provision in the voting rights act of 1965 which said that if certain states change their districts it must first be approved by the federal government that's why north carolina was sending their plan to the justice department to begin with okay so what was the constitutional principle at stake this case was argued on the merits of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on one side those citizens in shaw's group argue that the equal protection clause was violated because the districts were drawn only with race in mind on reno's side they argued that the equal protection clause was not violated because these districts were drawn with the intention of helping black residents who had been the object of historical discrimination so think about that carefully some residents are complaining that these districts were drawn for the sole purpose of electing black representatives to the legislature and that's wrong because the constitution is colorblind and the justice department agrees yes these districts were drawn to favor one race over another and that's okay when the race under consideration has been one that has been marginalized in the past so the justice department isn't arguing with their interpretation yes by a strict colorblind reading of the constitution this is wrong but the argument goes the constitution ought not be colorblind and we ought to favor the marginalized where we can in order to create a more equitable society okay so what was the decision well the court ruled against reno and the justice department arguing that while these districts may have been drawn with noble intentions districts drawn only based on race were unconstitutional because it sets a dangerous precedent like if this iteration of racial gerrymandering were approved what's to stop the majority races in power from doing the same thus yes the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was violated by these strange districts so that was the decision now let's look at why the case matters xavi reno set a precedent for future cases involving racial gerrymandering and to this day districts cannot be drawn only with the intent to gather those of the same race into voting districts and this has been challenged on several occasions over the years and the decision still stands okay that's what you need to know about shaw v reno if you want some more videos covering the required cases then click right over here and all your dreams will come true if you want help getting an a in your class and a five on your exam may then click right here and grab a review packet and finally if this video helped you and you want me to keep making them then subscribe and i shall oblige heimler out