Source: http://digitalcollections.uncc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p16033coll20/id/4858/
Timestamp: 2020-02-19 22:02:18
Document Index: 588526200

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973']

Home Kelly Alexander, Sr. Papers Concerning the NAACP, 1948-1998 naacp-ms508-0211034-092
the candidate as the chosen representative
of a particular racial group, not the race of
the candidate, that is important. (Per Justice Brennan, with three Justices concur-
- ring and one Justice concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment.) Voting
20. Elections 0=12(7)
Concept of racially polarized voting as
it refers to dilution of minority group voting strength through use of multimember
districts in violation of section 2 does not
refer only to white bloc voting which is
caused by white voters' racial hostility toward the black candidate. (Per Justice
Brennan, with three Justices concurring
and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights
21. Elections 0=12(9)
Minority voters claiming vote dilution
in violation of section 2 through use of
electoral devices such as multimember districts need not prove causation or intent in
order to prove a prima facie case of racial
bloc voting and defendants may not rebut a
prima facie case with evidence of causation
Nor intent. (Per Justice Brennan, with three
22. Elections o=l2(3)
Proof that some minority candidates
have been elected does not foreclose a claim
under section 2 for impermissible dilution
of minority voting strength. (Per Justice
* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion
of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
v. GINGLES 2755
23. States o=27(10)
District court could take account of
circumstances surrounding recent black
electoral success in determining its significance to claim of impermissible dilution of
minority voting strength and could properly notice fact that electoral success increased after filing of lawsuit challenging
multimember districts on the grounds of
24. States 0=27(7)
Persistent proportional representation
in particular multimember district over the
last six elections showed that multimember
district did not impermissibly dilute black
voting strength in violation of section 2, in
the absence of any explanation for success
of black candidates in three of the six elections. (Per Justice Brennan with one Justice concurring and four Justices concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as
25. Federal Courts 0=855
Clearly erroneous test of Rule 52(a) is
of a finding of impermissible vote dilution.
Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973; Fed.Rules Civ.
Proc.Rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A.
26. States 0=27(10)
Finding of impermissible dilution of
black voting strength through use of multimember legislative districts was supported
by evidence of racially polarized voting,
legacy of official discrimination in voting
matters, education, housing, employment,
and health services, and persistence of
campaign appeals to racial prejudice. Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42
In 1982, the North Carolina General
Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting
reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co.,
200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed.
Title naacp-ms508-0211034-092
OCR Transcript THORNBURG Cite as 106 S.Ct. the candidate as the chosen representative of a particular racial group, not the race of the candidate, that is important. (Per Justice Brennan, with three Justices concur- - ring and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. 20. Elections 0=12(7) Concept of racially polarized voting as it refers to dilution of minority group voting strength through use of multimember districts in violation of section 2 does not refer only to white bloc voting which is caused by white voters' racial hostility toward the black candidate. (Per Justice Brennan, with three Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. 21. Elections 0=12(9) Minority voters claiming vote dilution in violation of section 2 through use of electoral devices such as multimember districts need not prove causation or intent in order to prove a prima facie case of racial bloc voting and defendants may not rebut a prima facie case with evidence of causation Nor intent. (Per Justice Brennan, with three Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. 22. Elections o=l2(3) Proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a claim under section 2 for impermissible dilution of minority voting strength. (Per Justice Brennan, with three Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. * The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the v. GINGLES 2755 2752 (1986) 23. States o=27(10) District court could take account of circumstances surrounding recent black electoral success in determining its significance to claim of impermissible dilution of minority voting strength and could properly notice fact that electoral success increased after filing of lawsuit challenging multimember districts on the grounds of vote dilution. Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. 24. States 0=27(7) Persistent proportional representation in particular multimember district over the last six elections showed that multimember district did not impermissibly dilute black voting strength in violation of section 2, in the absence of any explanation for success of black candidates in three of the six elections. (Per Justice Brennan with one Justice concurring and four Justices concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. 25. Federal Courts 0=855 Clearly erroneous test of Rule 52(a) is appropriate standard for appellate review of a finding of impermissible vote dilution. Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973; Fed.Rules Civ. Proc.Rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 26. States 0=27(10) Finding of impermissible dilution of black voting strength through use of multimember legislative districts was supported by evidence of racially polarized voting, legacy of official discrimination in voting matters, education, housing, employment, and health services, and persistence of campaign appeals to racial prejudice. Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973. Syllabus * In 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Add tags for naacp-ms508-0211034-092
Post a Comment for naacp-ms508-0211034-092