Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Georgia v. Ashcroft

Docket No.: 02-182
Argued: April 29, 2003
Decided: June 26, 2003

Topics:

Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Reapportionment, Voting Rights Act of 1965, antitrust, sex discrimination

PartyNames: Georgia, Appellant v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.
Petitioner: Georgia, Appellant
Respondent: John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.

Court Below: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Citation: DC District of Columbia, 204 F. Supp.2d 4. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the drawing of safe majority-minority districts with supermajority minori ty populations, rather than districts that afford minorities equal opportunities at success? II. Whether Section 5 can be constitutionally construed to require the drawing of supermajority minority legislative districts in order to create safe seats, rather than seats that afford minorities equal opportunities at success?
Supreme Court Docket

Georgia, Appellant
v.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.
539 U.S. 461 (2003)
Question:

Did the redistricting plan violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by spreading minority voters across several districts rather than concentrating them in a few heavily minority ones?

Georgia v. Ashcroft
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 29, 2003

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Georgia, 4 vote(s) against
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)