Veasey v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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 regis ter, 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, w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted

2. “Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature, because the benefit to sound decisionmaking in this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress’ purpose. It is entirely a different matter when [courts] are asked to void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it, What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are. suffi ciently high for [courts] to eschew guesswork.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Husted

3. “[ajccording to a well-established formula ... to assess individuals’ likelihood of voting in an election, increasing the cost of voting decreases voter turnout — particularly among low-income individuals, as they are most cost sensitive.” (citing Veasey v. Perry, 71 F.Supp.3d at 656 ). 56 . How the majority can claim its interpretation is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Veasey v. Abbott