Law Firm News
Today's Legal News/b> Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts
Legal Court Feed | 2017/05/23 00:18
The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina Monday because race played too large a role in their creation.

The justices ruled that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.

Both districts have since been redrawn and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016. Even with the new districts, Republicans maintained their 10-3 edge in congressional seats.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the state did not offer compelling justifications to justify its reliance on race in either district.

The issue of race and redistricting one is a familiar one at the Supreme Court and Kagan noted that one of the districts was "making its fifth appearance before this court."

States have to take race into account when drawing maps for legislative, congressional and a host of municipal political districts. At the same time, race can't be the predominant factor without very strong reasons, under a line of high court cases stretching back 20 years.

A three-judge federal court had previously struck down the two districts. The justices upheld the lower court ruling on both counts.

The court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling on District 1 in northeastern North Carolina. Kagan wrote that the court will not "approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence."

The justices split 5-3 on the other district, District 12 in the southwestern part of the state. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to form a majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not part in the case.

The state insisted that race played no role at all in the creation of one district. Instead, the state argued that Republicans who controlled the redistricting process wanted to leave the district in Democratic hands, so that the surrounding districts would be safer for Republicans.


[PREV] [1] ..[1062][1063][1064][1065][1066][1067][1068][1069][1070].. [2414] [NEXT]
All
Lawyer News Press
Attorney Press Release
Law Firm Information
Legal Court Feed
Lawyer News Source
Current Legal Issues
Attorney Blogs
Recent Law Insight
Updated Court News
What’s next for birthright ..
Court to hear appeal from Ch..
Judge asks if troops in Los ..
Judge blocks plan to allow i..
Getty Images and Stability A..
Supreme Court makes it easie..
Trump formally asks Congress..
World financial markets welc..
Cuban exiles were shielded f..
Arizona prosecutors ordered ..
What to know about the Supre..
Trump Seeks Supreme Court Ap..
Budget airline begins deport..
Jury begins deliberating in ..
Judge bars deportations of V..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
   Law Firm Blog Links
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
San Francisco Family Law Lawyer
San Jose Family Law Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
 
 
© www.lawfirmseo101.com. All rights reserved.

The legal content posted on this web site has been prepared by Law Firm Seo as a service to the legal news community and is not intended to replace legal advice or substitute for professional legal consultation with a licensed lawyer or attorney in any particular case or circumstance. Law Firm SEO postings and comments are available for legal educational purposes only and should not be used to analyze any specific legal situation.

Personal Injury Lawyer Web Design