Which case held that a Congressional reapportionment plan that is so irregular that it's evident to segregate voters by race must be reviewed under strict scrutiny?

• A. Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• B. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
• C. Miller v. California (1973)
• D. Katz v. United States (1967)

Answer: (A)

In this topic, the important idea is how the Constitution treats race in drawing election districts. When the government classifications involve race, courts use strict scrutiny, the highest level of review, to decide whether the plan is allowed. Shaw v. Reno sites exactly this issue: it deals with a congressional redistricting plan that was so irregular in shape that it suggested the districts were drawn to segregate voters by race. The Court ruled that such plans must be examined under strict scrutiny. This means the state must show a compelling interest for the race-based plan and demonstrate that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The odd, racially charged appearance of the districts signals potential unconstitutional motive, so a court will not uphold the plan unless those stringent criteria are met.

Other cases mentioned focus on completely different constitutional protections, so they don’t address redistricting or the scrutiny level for race-based districting. Gideon v. Wainwright is about the right to counsel in criminal cases, Miller v. California concerns obscenity, and Katz v. United States deals with privacy and electronic surveillance.