Term: 2002
Docket: 02-182
Georgia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Et Al.
- Pro
02-182 GEORGIA v. ASHCROFT Ruling below: DC District of Columbia, 204 F. Supp.2d 4. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the drawing of safe majority- minority districts with supermajority minority populations, rather than districts that afford minorities equal opportunities at success? II. Whether Section 5 can be constitutionally construed to require the drawing of supermajority minority legislative districts in order to create safe seats, rather than seats that afford minorities equal opportunities at success? III. Whether private parties should be allowed to intervene in a section 5 preclearance action and assume the role and authority of the Attorney General? Jurisdiction Noted: 1/17/03 Expedited briefing schedule.
In the 2002 case of Georgia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al., the state of Georgia challenged a redistricting plan that had been rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ argued that this new plan violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it reduced minority voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice in three districts. However, Georgia contended that while some districts may have seen a decrease in minority voting strength, overall minority influence was increased across all districts due to better distribution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia stating that maintaining or increasing majority-minority districts is not always necessary under Section 5 if an alternative plan increases minorities’ political power and influence more broadly.
In the case of Georgia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al., 2002, the dissenting opinion argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was intended to prevent any voting changes that would lead to a retrogression in minority voters' position. The majority's interpretation allows states to trade off various kinds of electoral opportunities which could potentially dilute minority voting strength and undermine their ability to elect candidates of choice. They contended this is contrary to Congress’s intent when it enacted and later amended Section 5. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's view on considering overall proportionality as an acceptable defense for redistricting plans under scrutiny for potential racial gerrymandering or vote dilution issues.
