Ohne Titel

Colesgrove v. Green

1946

Court refuses to intervene calling redistricting a "political thicket" to be avoided.

Baker v Carr

1962

The court ruled that they had jurisdiction under the 14th amendment.

This case is significant because it is one of the first landmark reapportionment cases.

Gray v Sanders (Population)

1963

a case brought by a Georgia voter who alleged that the state's system for counting primary votes the county unit voting system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, giving disproportionate influence to voters in rural counties.

important because it defines the standard of "one person, one vote"

Wesberry v Sanders (Population)

1964

The case alleged that the population of Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, his home district, was two to three times larger than that of other districts in the state, thereby diluting the impact of his vote relative to other Georgia residents in violation of the United States Constitution.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of finding that congressional districts must have nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

Voting Rights Act

1965

Thornsberry v. Gingles

1985

Shaw vs. Reno

Shaw vs. Hunt

Miller v. Johnson, (1995)

1993

Significance: This case created the standard for determining when a majority-minority district be drawn.

The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

1995

In this case, the Federal Court rejected the 12th district gerrymander upon finding a 14th amendment violation. This is significant because it helped to establish race-based redistricting as unconstitutional.

19

Case in which the redistricting plans in Georgia were challenged because of the bizarre shape of the redistricting plan.

The court ruled that this plan was unconstitutional because they were based on race and the districts were redrawn.

This case is significant because even after they were redrawn, minority candidates still won.

2013

Recent case in which NC GOP/legislatures repacked two districts after the census following the regulations of the VRA.

Plaintiffs argued that they moved black voters into these districts to dilute their presence in other districts.

The court ruled that redistricting based on race is unconstitutional.

Thomas joins 5-3 majority and argues that the VRA does not apply to redistricting

2017

A supreme court case that challenged section four of the VRA.

The court ruled that it is unconstitutional because it uses over 40-year-old data to determine what districts qualify for pre-clearance.

the majority argued that the VRA achieved its purpose by eliminating discriminatory voting practices; old data is no longer good.

The minority argued that second generation voting barriers substituted for first generation barriers disallowed by the VRA.

This is significant because it eliminated one of the key components to the VRA.

Shelby County v. Holder

Cooper v. Miller