Supreme Court of the United States
Georgia v. Ashcroft
June 26, 2003539 U.S. 461
Summary
The Court held that the District Court erred in its § 5 retrogression analysis by focusing too narrowly on specific districts rather than the statewide plan as a whole. The Court clarified that § 5 permits States to create influence districts even if it reduces the ability to elect candidates of choice in some districts, provided overall voting strength is not retrogressive. Justice Souter dissented, arguing the new standard is unadministrable and the District Court did not clearly err.
Holding
- Whether private litigants may intervene in § 5 actions.. Private parties may intervene in § 5 actions assuming they meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
- Whether the District Court properly analyzed whether Georgia's Senate plan resulted in retrogression under § 5.. The District Court failed to consider all relevant factors when examining whether the plan resulted in retrogression of black voters' effective exercise of the electoral franchise.
Docket 02-182
Cited authorities
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
- 42 U.S.C. § 1973
- 79 Stat. 439
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
- 42 U.S.C. § 1973
- 42 U.S.C. § 1973
- 80 N.C. L. Rev. 1517
Cited by
- Shannon Perez v. Greg Abbott
- Metts v. Almond
- William Desena and Sandra W. Dunham, Plaintiffs v. State of Maine, Defendants
- Anwar v. United States
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. the State of Alabama, Defendants Alabama Democratic Conference v. the State Of…
- Mathis Kearse Wright, Jr. v. Sumter County Board of Elections and Registration
- Robyn Kravitz v. United States Department of Commerce, La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Wilbur Ross
- Gary Voketz, for Himself and on Behalf of the Citizens of Decatur, Alabama, and the State of Alabama v. Decatur…