Holder v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

161 federal appellate · 48 district · 19 state decisions

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

1. “[t]here is no principled reason why one size should be picked over another as the benchmark for [determining whether vote dilution has occurred].”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hall v. Holder · Ek Hall v. US C R

2. “(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nipper v. Smith · Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

3. “1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; 2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; 3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; 4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process; 5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; 6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals; 7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 969 F. Supp. 749 - Cofield v. CITY OF LaGRANGE, GEORGIA · 914 F. Supp. 843 - Reed v. Town of Babylon