42 U.S.C. § 1973
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,349
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Bartlett v. Strickland
Bartlett v. Strickland (2009)
“437 , as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (2000 ed.). The question is whether the statute can be invoked to require state officials to draw election-district lines to allow a racial minority to join with other voters to elect the minority's candidate of choice, even where the racial…”
Holder v. Hall (1994)
“This case presents the question whether the size of a governing authority is subject to a vote dilution challenge under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 . I The State of Georgia has 159 counties, one of which is Bleckley County, a rural county in central…”
Johnson v. De Grandy (1994)
“437 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 . We hold that no violation of § 2 can be found here, where, in spite of continuing discrimination and racial bloc voting, minority voters form effective voting majorities in a number of districts roughly proportional to the minority voters'…”
Hayden v. Pataki (2006)
“We have granted en banc review in order to decide whether plaintiffs can state a claim for violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973 , based on allegations that a New York State statute that disenfranchises currently incarcerated…”
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006)
“The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judge Higginbotham and District Judges Ward and Rosenthal, brought considerable experience and expertise to the instant action, based on their knowledge of the State’s people, history, and geography.”
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (1997)
“437 , 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973 , 1973c. Specifically, we decide two questions: (i) whether preclearance must be denied under § 5 whenever a covered jurisdiction's new voting "standard, practice, or procedure" violates § 2; and (ii) whether evidence that a new…”
Chisom v. Roemer (1991)
“, at 625 (quoting 42 U. S. C. § 1973 (b)). Noting that this language protects both the "the broad and general opportunity to participate in the political process and the specific one to elect representatives," LULAC, 914 F.”
City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
“437 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 . Assuming, for present purposes, that there exists a private right of action to enforce this statutory provision, [8] it is apparent that the language of § 2 no more than elaborates upon that of the Fifteenth Amendment, [9] and the sparse…”
Abrams v. Johnson (1997)
“Second and third, they allege the plan violates §§ 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973 , 1973c. Fourth, they argue the court's plan contains significant population deviations and so violates the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement.”
Martinez v. Bush (2002)
“§ 2000d, because minorities were not given sufficient opportunity to participate; (2) that the reapportionment plan led to the dilution of black [2] voting power [3] *1279 in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 ; and (3) that the Florida…”
Jeffers v. Clinton (1990)
“Seventeen black electors [1] bring this suit, claiming the plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Ohio State Conference of the National Ass'n v. Husted (2014)
“§ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973 challenging the constitutionality and legality of SB 238 and Directive 2014-17.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) — 3 cases
Montero v. Meyer (1988)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) — 5 cases
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006)
“The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judge Higginbotham and District Judges Ward and Rosenthal, brought considerable experience and expertise to the instant action, based on their knowledge of the State’s people, history, and geography.”
Chisom v. Edwards (1988)
Lewis v. Alamance County NC (1996)
Gause v. Brunswick County (1996)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973(c)(1) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973(f)(2) — 1 case
Sanchez v. State of Colo. (1994)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.