Law Firm Planner - Legal News - Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts
Law Firm News
Today's Date: Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts
Law Center | 2017/05/22 15:42
The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina Monday because race played too large a role in their creation.

The justices ruled that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

Both districts have since been redrawn and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016. Even with the new districts, Republicans maintained their 10-3 edge in congressional seats.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the state did not offer compelling justifications to justify its reliance on race in either district.

The issue of race and redistricting one is a familiar one at the Supreme Court and Kagan noted that one of the districts was "making its fifth appearance before this court."

States have to take race into account when drawing maps for legislative, congressional and a host of municipal political districts. At the same time, race can't be the predominant factor without very strong reasons, under a line of high court cases stretching back 20 years.

A three-judge federal court had previously struck down the two districts. The justices upheld the lower court ruling on both counts.

The court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling on District 1 in northeastern North Carolina. Kagan wrote that the court will not "approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence."

The justices split 5-3 on the other district, District 12 in the southwestern part of the state. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to form a majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not part in the case.

The state insisted that race played no role at all in the creation of one district. Instead, the state argued that Republicans who controlled the redistricting process wanted to leave the district in Democratic hands, so that the surrounding districts would be safer for Republicans.


[PREV] [1] ..[175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183].. [1966] [NEXT]
All
Law Firm News
Headline News
Law Center
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Topics
Lawyer News
Legal Focuses
Opinions
Marketing
Politics
Firm News
Court: Idaho nuclear waste d..
Kushner firm seeks court cha..
Wisconsin Supreme Court prim..
Supreme Court blocks some re..
Court allows Pennsylvania to..
Greek court postpones decisi..
Prosecutor asks for prison t..
Court: Lawsuit alleging coer..
Samsung heir freed after app..
Supreme Court delays order f..
Court seems to favor death r..
Officials ask court to send ..
Malaysia's top court annuls ..
Top Pakistani court orders a..
Analysis: Outside groups may..


   Lawyer & Law Firm List
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
New Rochelle Oil and Gas Industry Law Firm
www.kboattorneys.com
Canton Family Lawyer
Canton Divorce Lawyer
cantoncriminalattorney.com
 
 
© Law Firm Planner. All rights reserved. - Legal News and Articles on Recent US Legal Developments.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Law Firm Planner Media as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Law Firm Website Design by Best Lawyer Website Design- Attorney Web Design That Works