Mallory v. Eyrich’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 275 · 1988
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973L (§ 14 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1975 (Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Thornburg v. Gingles · Allen v. State Board of Elections · South Carolina v. Katzenbach · City of Mobile v. Bolden
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The legislative history on the whole supports the view that Congress intended to reach any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered state in even a minor way. For example, § 2 of the Act, as originally drafted, included a prohibition against any [discriminatory] “qualification or procedure.” During the Senate hearings on the bill, Senator Fong expressed concern that the word “procedure” was not broad enough to cover various practices that might effectively be employed to deny citizens their right to vote. In response, the Attorney General said he had no objection to expanding the language of the section, as the word “procedure” “was intended to be all-inclusive of any kind of practice.” Indicative of an intention to give the Act the broadest possible scope, Congress expanded the language in the final version of § 2 to include any “voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1964 ed., Supp. I).”
1 later decision 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.... (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the 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) of this section 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As previously noted, the district court stated in its order that the record would support granting relief to the plaintiffs under a “results” standard. The plaintiffs urge us to treat this as the district court’s ultimate finding if we conclude that Section 2 applies, and remand only for development of an appropriate remedy. Since the case was decided by the district court on summary judgment without a fully developed record, we believe the better course is to remand on all issues, (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mallory v. Eyrich
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.