Sanchez v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.2d 1488 · 1989
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Jenkins v. Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education (1993), Vecinos de Barrio Uno v. City of Holyoke (1995)
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 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)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Thornburg v. Gingles · City of Mobile v. Bolden · White v. Regester · Whitcomb v. Chavis
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court has a right to consider [elections with only 'Anglo' candidates] and to give them such weight as the circumstances warrant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 the policy u”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is questionable in light of the language of § 2, which seeks to give minorities equal opportunity to `elect representatives of their choice' ... Nothing in the statute indicates the chosen representative of a minority group must be a minority.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.