Terrazas v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2014
2 federal appellate · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Cannon v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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. “Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs’ evidence to establish a violation are: “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. “whether th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[wjhere the absence of proportional representation results simply from the loss of elections rather than a “built-in bias” against a minority group, that group’s voting strength has not been “cancelled out” in any constitutional sense. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. [124] at 152-53, 91 S.Ct. [1858] at 1873-74 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971)]. The same result obtains under the section 2 test unless the courts attach no meaning either to the Congressional caveat against proportional representation, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (b), or to the explicit codification of pre-Bolden law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“• Whether the impact of the decision bears more heavily on one racial group than another; • Contemporaneous statements by the decisionmakers; • The historical background of the decision; • The sequence of events leading up to the decision; and • Whether the decision departs from the normal practice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Veasey v. Perry
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.