Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Georgia_v._Ashcroft> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 41 of
41
with 100 items per page.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft abstract "Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state’s creation of additional influence and coalition districts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the district court to examine the facts using the new standard announced in its opinion.".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft wikiPageExternalLink 02-182.ZS.html.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft wikiPageID "23557143".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft wikiPageRevisionID "510171590".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft arguedate "--04-29".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft argueyear "2003".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft citation "172800.0".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft concurrence "Kennedy".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft concurrence "Thomas".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft decidedate "--06-26".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft decideyear "2003".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft dissent "Souter".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft fullname "Georgia, Appellant v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft hasPhotoCollection Georgia_v._Ashcroft.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft holding "Georgia did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1965 in its redistricting.".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft joindissent "Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft joinmajority "Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft majority "O'Connor".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft prior "On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft scotus "1994".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft uspage "461".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft usvol "539".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft subject Category:2003_in_United_States_case_law.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft subject Category:2003_in_the_United_States.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft subject Category:History_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft subject Category:United_States_electoral_redistricting_case_law.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type Case.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type LegalCase.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type UnitOfWork.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type Event.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft type Situation.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft comment "Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft label "Georgia v. Ashcroft".
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft sameAs m.06w7072.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft sameAs Q5547969.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft sameAs Q5547969.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft wasDerivedFrom Georgia_v._Ashcroft?oldid=510171590.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft isPrimaryTopicOf Georgia_v._Ashcroft.
- Georgia_v._Ashcroft name "Georgia, Appellant v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.".