Frank v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.3d 744 · 2014
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1973G (§ 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 52 U.S.C. § 10301 · 52 U.S.C. § 20504 · 52 U.S.C. § 21083
Relies on Thornburg v. Gingles · Milliken v. Bradley · Chisom v. Roemer · Crawford v. Marion County Election Board · Gonzalez v. Arizona
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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. 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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b). (b) A violation of subsection (a) 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) 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nless the State of Wisconsin made it 'needlessly hard' to obtain the requisite photo identification for voting, this requirement did not result in a 'denial' of anything by Wisconsin, as § 2(a) requires.”
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.