Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Shaw v. Reno and Easley v. Cromartie.

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.

Gerrymandering

Explanation:

In both Shaw and Easley, the Supreme Court considered cases that dealt with the politically influenced redrawing of Congressional districts, also known as gerrymandering.