Court & Legal News
Today's Date: Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts
Legal Information | 2017/05/20 12:37
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] ..[1044][1045][1046][1047][1048][1049][1050][1051][1052].. [2061] [NEXT]
All
Law Firm News
Legal World News
Law Firm Press Release
Legal Information
Attorney Interview
State Law Issues
Court Updates
Local Legal Events
Lawyer Court Feed
A Canadian man facing 14 mur..
Alleged white supremacist pl..
Tiger Woods says he'll seek ..
Trump is at the Court as it ..
Wisconsin man who ordered ba..
Federal judge blocks Pentago..
Supreme Court sounds skeptic..
Judge rules US government ov..
Immigration lawyers accuse V..
No new trial for man convict..
US and Israeli attacks on Ir..
Trump administration's 'thir..
House will vote on an Iran w..
Suspect in mass shooting at ..
Trump is threatening to bloc..


   Law Firm Blog Links
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
Rockville MD Divorce Attorney
Rockville Maryland Family Law Attorneys
familylawyersmd.com
Law Firm News Updates
Legal News Updates
Click The Law News
Daily Legal News
Legal News Voice
Recent Legal News
 
 

© 2016 www.lawfirmnewsworld.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by lawfirmnewsworld.com as a community service to the legal and internet community and is not intended to represent legal advice or act as substitute for legal consultation with a licensed professional attorney in a particular cases or circumstances. Attorney & Law Firm News postings and hosted comments are available for general informational purposes only and should not be used to assess any legal situation. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design