Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dougherty County Bd. of Educ. Vs. White

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 28, 1978

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 4 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. South Carolina Vs. Katzenbach US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1966
  2. Perkins Vs. Matthews US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1971
  3. Bullock Vs. Carter US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1972
  4. LubIn Vs. Panish US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  5. U.S. 32 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Dougherty County Bd. of Educ. v. White
    Search
  6. U.S. 32 (1978) Dougherty County Board of Education v. White
    Search
  7. Allen v. State
    Search
  8. subdivision within the purview of the Act when it exercises control over the electoral process. United States v. Board
    Search
  9. whether the change, in fact, had a discriminatory purpose or effect. See Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  10. Georgia v. United
    Search
  11. U. S. 534 (1973). In concluding that the Rule did have such potential, the District Court interpreted Allen v. State
    Search
  12. Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969), and Georgia v. United
    Search
  13. We noted probable jurisdiction. 435 U.S. 921 (1978). Since we find Allen v. State
    Search
  14. Board of Elections, supra, and United States v. Board
    Search
  15. in Allen v. State
    Search
  16. and construed it to encompass candidate qualification requirements. Id. at 393 U. S. 570 ( Whitley v. Williams
    Search
  17. we have consistently adhered to the principles of broad construction set forth in Allen. In Hadnott v. Amos
    Search
  18. expansively to mandate preclearance for changes in the location of polling places, Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  19. alterations of municipal boundaries, Richmond v. United
    Search
  20. Petersburg v. United
    Search
  21. and reapportionment and redistricting plans, Georgia v. United
    Search
  22. would have clarified its intent when reenacting the statute in 1970 and 1975. Yet, as this Court observed in Georgia v. United
    Search
  23. in Allen and Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  24. this interpretation of its scope is entitled to particular deference. United States v. Board
    Search
  25. U.S. at 400 U. S. 391 . See Georgia v. United
    Search
  26. Page 439 U. S. 41 In Georgia v. United
    Search
  27. that of many of the candidate qualification changes for which we have previously required preclearance. See Hadnott v. Amos
    Search
  28. to encompass, such as changes in the location of polling places, Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  29. and alterations in the procedures for casting a write-in vote, Allen v. State
    Search
  30. is, in fact, innocuous and likely to be approved, but whether it has a potential for discrimination. See Georgia v. United
    Search
  31. to candidacy as formidable as the filing date changes at issue in Hadnott v. Amos
    Search
  32. supra, at 394 U. S. 366 (2 months), and Allen v. State
    Search
  33. This contention is squarely foreclosed by our decision last Term in United States v. Board
    Search
  34. See Allen v. State
    Search
  35. Hearings on S. 1564 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 192 (1965), quoted in Allen v. State
    Search
  36. that led Congress to adopt the Voting Rights Act have been often discussed by this Court, see United States v. Board
    Search
  37. for County Judge). See also Lubin v. Panish
    Search
  38. of its population, see Paige v. Gray
    Search
  39. Ransum v. Chattanooga
    Search
  40. Campbell v. Red
    Search
  41. Ty Ty Consolidated School Dist. v. Colquitt
    Search
  42. construction of the statute does not accurately reflect the intent of the Congress that enacted it, see United States v. Board
    Search
  43. of the right to vote. In constructing this theory, ante at 439 U. S. 41 , the Court relies upon Bullock v. Carter
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Dougherty County Bd. of Educ. v. White
    Search
  45. Dougherty County Board of Education v. White
    Search
  46. United States v. Board
    Search
  47. See Perkins v. Matthews
    Search
  48. and Georgia v. United
    Search
  49. and United States v. Board
    Search
  50. Whitley v. Williams
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial