Citation network
Chisom Vs. Roemer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1991
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
-
U.S. 380 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
U.S. 380 (1991) Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
the complaint in light of its earlier en banc decision in League of United Latin American Citizens Council No. 444 v. ClementsSearch
-
rights, the statute identifies two inextricably linked elements of a plaintiff's burden of proof. See, e.g., White v. RegesterSearch
-
from implementing a new voting procedure having discriminatory effects with respect to judicial elections, Clark v. RoemerSearch
-
P. 501 U. S. 401 -402. (e) That the one-person, one-vote rule is inapplicable to judicial elections, Wells v. EdwardsSearch
-
Page 501 U. S. 382 for voting rights not adequately protected by the Constitution itself. Cf. City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
of the population of the First Supreme Court District and about half of the registered voters in that district. Chisom v. EdwardsSearch
-
registration. Id. at 8, 47. The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint. Chisom v. EdwardsSearch
-
Id. at 187. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Chisom v. EdwardsSearch
-
F.2d 1056, cert. denied sub nom. Roemer v. ChisomSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.2d at 1058. After agreeing with the recently announced opinion in Mallory v. EyrichSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Martin v. AllainSearch
-
under the standards set forth in Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
of the Act as amended. League of United Latin American Citizens Council No. 444 v. ClementsSearch
-
to vote dilution claims in judicial elections. The majority also assumed that Congress was familiar with Wells v. EdwardsSearch
-
or abridged by dilution of voting strength derives from the one-person, one-vote reapportionment case of Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Unlike Wells v. EdwardsSearch
-
and Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
of the amended statute continues to apply to judicial elections, see Clark v. RoemerSearch
-
in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
Justice Stewart's opinion for the plurality in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
The statutory language is patterned after the language used by JUSTICE WHITE in his opinions for the Court in White v. RegesterSearch
-
U. S. 755 (1973), and Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
the Court identified the opportunity to participate and the opportunity to elect as inextricably linked. In White v. RegesterSearch
-
U.S. at 412 U. S. 766 (emphasis added). And earlier, in Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
Congress. v. BothSearch
-
When Congress borrowed the phrase from White v. RegesterSearch
-
applies to judicial elections. Clark v. RoemerSearch
-
They reason that, because we have held the one-person, one-vote rule inapplicable to judicial elections, see Wells v. EdwardsSearch
-
Amendment. It has no more relevance to a correct interpretation of this statute than does our decision in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
was enacted to protect voting rights that are not adequately protected by the Constitution itself. Cf. City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 301 , 383 U. S. 315 (1966). In Allen v. StateSearch
-
the original Act, like the Page 501 U. S. 404 Fifteenth Amendment, contained such a requirement. See Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
Chisom v. EdwardsSearch
-
granted plaintiffs' motion, having found that they satisfied the four elements required for injunctive relief. Chisom v. EdwardsSearch
-
of Appeals, however, vacated the preliminary injunction and ordered that the election proceed as scheduled. Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
In Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Supreme Court precedents, which applied in voting discrimination claims prior to the litigation involved in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
the legal standards under the results test by codifying the leading pre- Bolden vote dilution case, White v. RegesterSearch
-
Id. at 27 (footnote omitted). See also Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
is intended to codify the results' test employed in Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
U. S. 124 (1971), and White v. RegesterSearch
-
intent' test propounded in the plurality opinion in Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
The phrase is borrowed from JUSTICE WHITE's opinion for the Court in White v. RegesterSearch
-
U. S. 755 (1973), which predates Mobile v. BoldenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial