Paige v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “ ‘Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’ “[2] To prove that the right to vote has been denied or abridged on account of race or color in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, the plaintiffs are not required to establish by evidence that the individual persons who caused this 1947 law to be enacted — the legislators, the then Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern and City Commissioners ‘etc’ — devised it for the express purpose of denying or abridging the right of Negro citizens of Albany to vote or that they specifically intended for this law to result in a denial or an abridgement of the right of Negro citizens to vote. Instead, as the Supreme Court of the United States on November 14, 1960, in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 , 81 S.Ct. 125 , 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (an Alabama case challenging the constitutionality of an act of the Alabama legislature which redefined the boundaries of Tuskegee, Alabama, so as to exclude all but 4 or 5 of Tuskegee’s 400 Negro voters) has already decided, plaintiffs are only required to demonstrate that this 1947 act changing Albany’s method of electing city commissioners has the inevitable effect of depriving Negro citizens of their votes and of the consequent advantages that the ballot affords them. “As the Supreme Court said in Gom”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 437 F. Supp. 137 - Paige v. Gray · 469 F. Supp. 1150 - Clark v. Marengo County

2. “The Democratic primary election for the City of Albany was held . . . for the commissioners representing the second, third and fifth wards. The stipulated facts show that 3,548 persons were registered to vote in that election and that by race and ward they were as follows: Race Second Ward Third Ward Fifth Ward White 464 791 913 Black 309 61 1010 Blacks thus constituted more than a majority of the registered voters in the Fifth Ward. The stipulated facts further show that in the Fifth Ward’ there were two whites (sic) candidates running for the nomination. Of the 1,923 voters, 353 white citizens voted and 448 Negro citizens voted — a total of 791 — at what were then segregated polling places. Broken down by race those 791 votes were cast as follows: Candidates Edward J. Davis R, F. Armstrong White voters 156 197 Black voters 384 _64 Total 540 261 The overwhelming majority of black voters cast their votes for Edward J. Davis and a substantial majority of white voters cast their votes for R. F. Armstrong. Edward J. Davis was elected. The impact of the votes of the new black voters is readily apparent from these figures.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 437 F. Supp. 137 - Paige v. Gray

3. ““This court has not found nor has counsel suggested an appellate or Supreme Court decision in which an election scheme enacted some 28 years ago and not otherwise unconstitutional, has been determined to be violative of the equal protection clause because of the conduct of the public officials elected under the 28 year old scheme. If the equal protection clause were so interpreted, the United States courts would be continuously called upon to determine the present fairness towards all racial elements of all existing election schemes of our 50 states and thousands of local governments regardless of how long those schemes may have existed and regardless of whether or not when enacted they impinged upon the constitutional rights of the citizenry. United States courts would indeed supplant all legislative judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kendrick v. Walder