Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Department of Justice sued the state for racial discrimination, and a federal court re-drew the state's map, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that the court had not paid enough attention to the maps drawn by the legislature. [185] [186] [187] The Supreme Court upheld the state's redistricting plan in 2018. [188]
It ruled that the 2011 redistricting map violated either the VRA or the Constitution or a combination of both, and because the state used the maps proposed by Texas federal district court based on the original state maps following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling as the basis for the 2013 redistricting, that these were also similarly flawed.
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation.It overturned the Texas state law that authorized parties to set their internal rules, including the use of white primaries.
The judge’s order was short-lived, as the state attorney general's office appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court. In its brief order, the high court denied Harris County’s request to ...
The Supreme Court declined to prevent Texas state legislators from answering questions in a lawsuit over the state’s plan for redistricting.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
Several Latino groups and individuals filed a lawsuit challenging redistricting maps drawn by the Texas Legislature, saying they dilute Hispanic voting rights.
Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment ; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government.