# Shaw v. Reno > Supreme Court of the United States · June 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 630 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432897 ## Case - **Full name:** SHAW Et Al. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 28, 1993 - **Citations:** 509 U.S. 630; 113 S. Ct. 2816; 125 L. Ed. 2d 511; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4406 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Blackmun - **Judges:** O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, White, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter - **Cited by:** 587 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432897 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that a racial gerrymandering claim had been stated by North Carolina residents who alleged vote dilution and explaining that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot" and that electo… - recognizing racial gerrymandering claim for "[a] reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who may have little in common with one another but … - recognizing that "redistricting differs from other kinds of state decisionmaking in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic fa… - recognizing that “redistrieting differs from other kinds of state decisionmaking in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic fa… - recognizing that systems that “classify and separate voters by race” threaten “to undermine our system of representative democ *908 racy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole” ## Opinion text *678 Justice Blackmun, dissenting. I join Justice White’s dissenting opinion. I did not join Part IV of his opinion in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977), because I felt that its “additional argument,” id., at 165 , was not necessary to decide that case. I nevertheless agree that the conscious use of race in redistricting does not violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the effect of the redistricting plan is to deny a particular group equal access to the political process or to minimize its voting strength unduly. See, e. g., Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17 (1975); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). It is particularly ironic that the case in which today’s majority chooses to abandon settled law and to recognize for the first time this “analytically distinct” constitutional claim, ante, at 652, is a challenge by white voters to the plan under which North Carolina has sent black representatives to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction. I dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432897. Public record. Not legal advice.