Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court upheld the current redistricting maps as valid districts, outside of one district, Texas House District 90 near Fort Worth, which the court found was an "impermissible racial gerrymander", remanding the case to lower courts to correct the redistricting to eliminate the racial ...
Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. [1] The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning racial gerrymandering, where racial minority majority-electoral districts were created during Texas' 1990 redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
A county redistricting plan in Texas that a Donald Trump-appointed judge deemed “a clear violation” of the Voting Rights Act is back before a notoriously conservative appeals court.
At issue was a redistricting case in Galveston County, Texas, where Black and Latino groups had joined to challenge district maps drawn by the county commission. ... by Supreme Court precedent The ...
The US Supreme Court issued an opinion on the case in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry on June 28, 2006. While the Court said states are free to redistrict as often as desired, the justices ruled that Texas's 23rd congressional district was invalid, as it violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by racial gerrymandering .
But the legislature appealed the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court put the case on hold while deliberating over a similar redistricting case in Alabama. This allowed Louisiana’s initial map to ...
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and it remanded the case back to the District Court, but the ruling was made so close to the May primary election that the District Court's maps were allowed to stand for the 1982 elections. [114] [115] Clements and other Republicans criticized the court's decision as judicial activism. [116]