In Cooper v. Harris, the Court ruled that the district court did not err in determining that North Carolina's new districting plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, and neither claim nor issue preclusion based on the state court case dictate the outcome of this case.
1) What was the rationale used by the majority opinion to reach this conclusion?
2) Has this rationale changed or remained the same in comparison to any of the following cases about racial gerrymandering previously decided by the Court. Explain how it has either changed or remained the same. Use at least one of the following cases in your discussion: Shaw v. Reno (1993) Miller v. Johnson (1995) Bush v. Vera (1996)