|
''Georgia v. Ashcroft'', , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the () districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state’s creation of additional influence and coalition districts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the district court to examine the facts using the new standard announced in its opinion. == Background == §5 of the Voting Rights Act) requires that, for covered jurisdictions (which in this case included Georgia), any change in a voting "standard, practice, or procedure" must receive federal preclearance in order to ensure that the change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." For such purposes, the United States Supreme Court has generally held that the determination whether such a change should be precleared depends on whether the change would lead to a "retrogression" in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Georgia adopted a new state voter redistricting plan after the 2000 census. The plan "unpacked" the most heavily concentrated majority-minority districts in the benchmark plan, and created a number of new influence districts. After the 1990 census, there were some redistricting disputes involving Georgia's United States House of Representatives seats and the seats in the two houses of the state's legislature. Eventually, among other dispositions, the state's 1997 plan for redistricting the state's senate was precleared. After the 2000 census, there were again redistricting disputes. In 2001, the state enacted a new redistricting plan for the state's senate. Subsequently, the state :(1) filed a preclearance suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia; and :(2) sought a declaratory judgment that several redistricting plans, including the 2001 state-senate plan, did not violate § 5. The United States, through its Attorney General, opposed preclearance of the 2001 plan and argued that the plan's changes to three state-senate districts—in each of which the plan assertedly reduced the percentage of black voting-age population to just over 50 percent—unlawfully reduced the ability of black voters to elect candidates of their choice. Eventually, the District Court, in pertinent part, denied § 5 preclearance for the 2001 plan, as the court expressed the view that :(1) the three districts in question were retrogressive, for in each of those districts, a lesser opportunity existed for a black candidate of choice to win election under the new plan than under the benchmark 1997 plan; and :(2) Georgia had "failed to present any . . . evidence" that the retrogression in those three districts would be offset by gains in other districts (195 F Supp 2d 25). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Georgia v. Ashcroft」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|