Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both shaw v. reno and easley v. cromartie.

The Equal Protection Clause is the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that is common to both Shaw v. Reno and Easley v. Cromartie.

The Equal Protection Clause states that "Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Under the case of Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

Under the case of Easley v. Cromartie, the Supreme Court held that the State had violated the Equal Protection Clause because the drawn 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.

Therefore, in conclusion, the Equal Protection Clause is the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that is common to both case.

Learn more about Equal Protection Clause here

link

The fourteenth amendment equal protection clause

Explanation:

The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, provides that "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.