Henry J. Kirksey v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 669 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Henry J. Kirksey v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 669 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Dallas County Commission (alsd, 1982-09-10) · Strongest negative: League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements (ca5, 1993-08-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Kirksey v. City of Jackson, 663 F.2d 659, 662 (5th Cir. Unit A Dec. 1981) (holding that, because of First Amendment concerns, voters’ motivations are not subject to searching scrutiny by plaintiffs in a voting rights case), clarified, 669 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1982). .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dallas County Commission
S.D. Ala. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirksey v. City of Jackson, Miss., 663 F.2d 659 (5th C.C.A., 1981), reh. den. 669 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1982). *911 INTENT The Plaintiff introduced expert witness testimony in an effort to show that the 1901 statute under which the at-large method of selection of the county commission was reestablished was motivated by discriminatory racial motivation.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Dallas County Commission
S.D. Ala. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirksey v. City of Jackson, Miss., 663 F.2d 659 (5th C.C.A., 1981), reh. den. 669 F.2d 316 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry J. KIRKSEY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
81-4058.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 5, 1982.
669 F.2d 316
Frank R. Parker, Jackson, Miss., Barbara Y. Phillips, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs-appellants., Irving L. Gornstein, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae., Howard C. Ross, Jr., City Atty., Thomas G. Lilly, Joseph P. Wise, Richard D. Gamb-lin, Jackson, Miss., for respondents-appel-lees.
Gee, Markey, Per Curiam, Politz.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In their application for rehearing, appellants challenge our decision on the question of judicial inquiry into the motivation of the voters in the referendum election. Our opinion, 663 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1981), holds that an individual voter may not be subjected to judicial examination concerning how he voted or why he personally voted in that fashion. We affirm that conclusion. However, we specially note that our decision is not to be misunderstood as holding or suggesting that, in a proper case, the motivation of the electorate may not be examined by the introduction of[*317] either direct or circumstantial evidence. The latter inquiry may be a proper inquiry. The referendum process may not be used to legitimate an unconstitutional act. See Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 89 S.Ct. 557, 21 L.Ed.2d 616 (1969); Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 87 S.Ct. 1627, 18 L.Ed.2d 830 (1967); Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632 (1964). But the record in the case before us does not establish that type of abuse of the electoral process.

With this clarification, the application for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge of this Administrative Unit in regular active service having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16; Fifth Circuit Judicial Council Resolution of January 14, 1981), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.