Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 FSUPP 131 - Garza v. Smith

Garza v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Williams v. Rhodes · Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts · Cannon v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. That plaintiffs’ prayer for a preliminary or permanent injunction prohibiting the State of Texas from applying or enforcing Articles 5.05(15) and 8.13 of the Texas Election Code, insofar as they forbid to illiterate voters the assistance they authorize to voters who by reason of some bodily infirmity are physically unable to write or see, and ordering the State to provide such assistance to illiterate voters be, and is hereby, DENIED; provided, however, in the event the 62nd Texas Legislature, which convened in January of this year, fails to enact appropriate legislation to remedy the deficiencies in the statute, as we have pointed out, before it adjourns, the plaintiffs may apply to this Court for injunctive relief, and jurisdiction of this cause will be retained for that purpose should it become necessary. (3) This new judgment is being entered pursuant to the April 5, 1971 order of the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court Docket No. 1326, O.T., 1970). Dated May 17th, 1971. (emphasis in the original)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the ‘right to vote’ consists only of the right to enter the voting booth without hindrance or discrimination, perform the physical act of voting, and have the vote so recorded counted in the total of like votes cast, we cannot say that the challenged provisions have an impact on the illiterate voter’s ability to exercise the right. Except for physically disabled or blind illiterates, as to whom the issue is moot, an illiterate voter is capable of performing each element of the ‘right to vote’, as defined above, without hindrance from the statutes in question. We decide, however, that the ‘right to vote’ additionally includes the right to be informed as to which mark on the ballot, or lever on the voting machine, will effectuate the voter’s political choice.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““As Louisiana recognized for 150 years, if an illiterate is entitled to vote, he is entitled to assistance at the polls that will make his vote meaningful. We cannot impute to Congress the self-defeating notion that an illiterate has the right [to] pull the lever of a voting machine, but not the right to know for whom he pulls the lever.” Id. at 708.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.