This Article proceeds along two lines. First, it reviews the theories of harm set forth in the Justices' various opinions, i.e., the articulated risks to individual rights that may or may not be presented by racial gerrymandering. What is learned from this survey is that Shaw and its progeny serve different purposes for different members of the Court. Four members of the Shaw, Miller v. Johnson, and United States v. Hays majorities-Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas- are far more concerned with "race" than "gerrymandering." In particular, they consider all race-based government classifications to be inherently injurious, and they appear to view the racial gerrymandering cases as a vehicle for moving the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment closer to the ideal of "colorblindness.”
Samuel Issacharoff & Thomas C. Goldstein,
Identifying the Harm in Racial Gerrymandering Claims,
Mich. J. Race & L.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol1/iss1/2
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Election Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Race Commons