in a 5-4 decision, the court vacated a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that held that a Georgia state Senate redistricting plan violated � 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plan had sought to redistrict minority voters from electoral districts in which they comprised the majority so as to increase the number of influence districts in which black voters would be able to exert a significant electoral force. Georgia v. Ashcroft, No. 02-182.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
in a 5-4 decision, the court vacated a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that held that a Georgia state Senate redistricting plan violated § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plan had sought to redistrict minority voters from electoral districts in which they comprised the majority so as to increase the number of “influence” districts in which black voters would be able to exert a significant electoral force. Georgia v. Ashcroft, No. 02-182. According to O’Connor’s opinion, whether a redistricting plan diminishes blacks’ electoral power or not depends on a number of factors. In “order to maximize the electoral success of a minority group, a State may choose to create a certain number of ‘safe’ districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice . . . .Alternatively, a State may choose to create a greater number of districts in which it is likely-although perhaps not quite as likely as under the benchmark plan-that minority voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice . . . .Section 5 does not dictate that a State must pick one of these methods of redistricting over another.” O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. According to Souter’s dissent, the issue was not whether minority voters in new districts may have some influence, but whether minority voters will have effective influence. A redistricting plan “must show that the probable voting behavior of nonminority voters will make coalitions with minorities a real prospect.” His dissent was joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.