Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Georgia v. Ashcroft
No. (U.S. filed Aug. 1, 2002); No. 01-CV-2111-EGS (D.D.C. June 3, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54287
Description
Georgia Appeals to Supreme Court Ruling Invalidating Senate Redistricting Plan
Abstract
Appellant State of Georgia has filed its brief with the Supreme
Court in this action challenging Georgia’s Senate
Redistricting Plan under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At two
special sessions in 2001, the Georgia General Assembly redrew State
House, Senate, and congressional districts in light of the 2000
census. All three plans either maintained or increased the number
of majority black districts in the state. Georgia then filed this
action seeking preclearance for each of the new redistricting
plans. Several African American voters, represented by the Georgia
Republican Party, intervened. Following trial, the D.C. Circuit
precleared Georgia’s congressional and House plans, but
rejected the Senate plan. The court found that Georgia must
maintain as safe any district that previously had a supermajority
minority population, even if the district was greatly
underpopulated and had to be expanded to comply with one-person/one
vote requirements. Georgia appealed. In its brief to the Supreme
Court, the state argues that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
does not require the drawing of safe minority districts with
supermajority minority populations. Appellant asserts that
interpreting section 5 to mandate safe, supermajority districts is
irreconcilable with the limited procedural purpose of section 5 and
is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Appellant also argues
that section 5 cannot constitutionally require the drawing of
supermajority minority legislative districts in order to create
safe seats, rather than seats that afford minorities equal
opportunities to win. Finally, appellant argues that private
parties should not be allowed to intervene in a section 5
preclearance action and assume the role and authority of the
attorney general.
Additional Information
Files
- Complaint
- Defendants' Answer To Complaint
- Motion To Intervene As Defendants
- Plaintiff's Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition Of Motion To Intervene
- United States' Response To Motion To Intervene
- Statement Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Intervene
- Movants' Reply Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Intervene
- Amendment To Motion To Intervene
- Plaintiff's Reply To Amended Motion To Intervene
- Answer And Defenses Of Defendants
- Court order
- Defendants' amended identification of issues
- Plaintiff's opposition to amended identification of issues
- Amicus curiae brief of intervenors
- Court order
- Court order
- Amicus curiae brief of ACLU
- Plaintiff's proposed findings of fact
- Defendants' proposed findings of fact
- Intervenors' proposed findings of fact
- Plaintiff's reply memorandum
- Final opinion
- Appeal to Supreme Court
