Georgia v. Ashcroft (original) (raw)

dbo:abstract

Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state's creation of additional influence and coalition districts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the district court to examine the facts using the new standard announced in its opinion. (en)

dbo:wikiPageExternalLink

dbo:wikiPageID

23557143 (xsd:integer)

dbo:wikiPageLength

11283 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)

dbo:wikiPageRevisionID

1092503332 (xsd:integer)

dbo:wikiPageWikiLink

dbp:arguedate

0001-04-29 (xsd:gMonthDay)

dbp:argueyear

2003 (xsd:integer)

dbp:case

Georgia v. Ashcroft, (en)

dbp:concurrence

Thomas (en)
Kennedy (en)

dbp:cornell

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-182.ZS.html

dbp:decidedate

0001-06-26 (xsd:gMonthDay)

dbp:decideyear

2003 (xsd:integer)

dbp:dissent

Souter (en)

dbp:fullname

Georgia, Appellant v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. (en)

dbp:googlescholar

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=16739680036419753026

dbp:holding

Georgia did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in its redistricting. (en)

dbp:joindissent

Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer (en)

dbp:joinmajority

Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (en)

dbp:justia

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/461/

dbp:lawsapplied

dbr:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

dbp:loc

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep539/usrep539461/usrep539461.pdf

dbp:majority

O'Connor (en)

dbp:oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-182

dbp:page

30 (xsd:integer)

dbp:parallelcitations

172800.0 (dbd:second)

dbp:prior

172800.0 (dbd:second)

dbp:uspage

461 (xsd:integer)

dbp:usvol

539 (xsd:integer)

dbp:volume

478 (xsd:integer)

dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate

dbp:year

1986 (xsd:integer)

dct:subject

rdf:type

rdfs:comment

Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to (en)

rdfs:label

Georgia v. Ashcroft (en)

owl:sameAs

prov:wasDerivedFrom

wikipedia-en:Georgia_v._Ashcroft?oldid=1092503332&ns=0

foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf

wikipedia-en:Georgia_v._Ashcroft

foaf:name

(en)
Georgia, Appellant v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. (en)

is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of

is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of

is foaf:primaryTopic of

wikipedia-en:Georgia_v._Ashcroft