Citation network
Georgia Vs. Ashcroft
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2003
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. 461 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Georgia V. AshcroftSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
actions assuming they meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, NAACP v. NewSearch
-
the District Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing intervention in this case, see id., at 367. Morris v. GressetteSearch
-
Reno v. BossierSearch
-
a candidate of its choice is an important factor, but it cannot be dispositive or exclusive. See, e. g., Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
of the Voting Rights Act, see Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
refused preclearance because of Georgia's failure to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. See Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
however, was challenged as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
U. S. 630 (1993). In 1995, we held in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to create the congressional districting plan found unconstitutional in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
see also id., at 1536. Georgia recognized that after Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
of Justice refused to preclear the 1995 plan, maintaining that it retrogressed from the 1992 plan and that Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Id., at 1539-1540. The court noted that in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
preclearance from the Department of Justice, with some changes to accommodate the decision of this Court in Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
and of the District Court in Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
Georgia, which bears the burden of proof in this action, see Pleasant Grove v. UnitedSearch
-
to this type of lawsuit, and the statute by its terms does not bar private parties from intervening. In NAACP v. NewSearch
-
To support its argument, Georgia relies on Morris v. GressetteSearch
-
and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to intervene in this case. See NAACP v. NewSearch
-
with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.''' Miller, 515 U. S., at 926 (quoting Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
preclearance. City of Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
See Reno v. BossierSearch
-
Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Thornburg 480 v. GinglesSearch
-
in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice. See Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
of minority voters in a few districts does not constitute the unlawful packing of minority voters, see Voinovich v. QuilterSearch
-
the rest of the State, and risks narrowing political influence to only a fraction of political districts. Cf. Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
supra, at 99 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
see also White v. RegesterSearch
-
to elect a candidate of choice but can play a substantial, if not decisive, role in the electoral process. Cf. Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
group by increasing the number of representatives sympathetic to the interests of minority voters. See Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
analysis. Cf. Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
is able to elect a candidate of choice or to exert a significant influence in a particular district. See Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
Syllabus Georgia V. AshcroftSearch
-
Naacp V. NewSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
See Johnson v. MillerSearch
-
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Pleasant Grove v. UnitedSearch
-
In Naacp V. NewSearch
-
See NAACP v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial