Minority Representation and Majority‐Minority Districts after Shaw v. Reno : Legal Challenges, Empirical Evidence and Alternative Approaches

One of the most vexing problems of American federalism is the process by which representatives get elected from the respective states. This paper discusses the muddled precedent on gerrymandering established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno and upheld in subsequent cases. After conditionally upholding gerrymandering for political purposes in Davis v. Bandemer, the Court now rejects racial gerrymandering if the resulting districts have a particularly contorted appearance on a map. These rulings lack a clear definition of representation, though the Court has hinted that it may be necessary to move beyond the stark procedural view of one‐person, one‐vote. Although the concept of substantive representation may seem difficult to apply at first, it may be operationalized by considering the chances that a voter or coalition has of influencing an election. Given the obvious preferences of legislators and parties for “safe seats,” along with this vague Court precedent, voters may be tempted to refer districting controversies to nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions.