Veasey v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.3d 216 · 2016
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 52 U.S.C. § 10101 · 52 U.S.C. § 10301 · 52 U.S.C. § 10302
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] [T]he 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] [2] [T]hat 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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; and (7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]hould a later Legislature again address the issue of voter identification, any new law would present a new circumstance not addressed here. Such a new law may cure the deficiencies addressed in this opinion. Neither our ruling here nor any ruling of the district court on remand should prevent the Legislature from acting to ameliorate the issues raised in this opinion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Veasey v. Abbott · Veasey v. Abbott
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.