Simmons v. Galvin’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.3d 24 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 32 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Veasey v. Abbott (2016), 848 F. Supp. 2d 107 - Moore v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (2012)
11 federal appellate · 32 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 15483 (§ 303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973A (§ 3 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973G (§ 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Bell v. Wolfish · Gregg v. Georgia · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · United States v. Salerno
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. "the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; 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 voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting;” 4. "the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes;” 5. "the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political processes;” 6. "the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns;” 7. "the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction;” 8. "whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group;” and 9. "whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Veasey v. Abbott · Brown v. Detzner“'While Gingles and its progeny have generated a well-established standard for vote dilution, a satisfactory test for vote denial cases under Section 2 has yet to emerge ... [and] the Supreme Court's seminal opinion in Gingles ... is of little use in vote denial cases.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“First ... the challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that members of the protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice; [and] Second ... that burden must in part be caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have or currently produce discrimination against members of the protected class.”
2 later decisions 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.