Easley v. Cromartie
| Easley v. Cromartie (also known as Hunt v. Cromartie) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Argued November 27, 2000 Decided April 18, 2001 | |||||||
| Full case name | Michael F. Easley, Governor of North Carolina v. Martin Cromartie, et al. | ||||||
| Citations | |||||||
| Holding | |||||||
| The District Court's conclusion that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings. | |||||||
| Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg | ||||||
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy | ||||||
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 US 234 (2001), also known as Hunt v. Cromartie, was a U.S. Supreme Court case. The court's ruling on April 18, 2001 stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering. (Case No. 99-1864).
The Supreme Court held in the case that as Southern blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party, North Carolina's 12th congressional district was drawn based upon voting behavior, instead of upon racial characteristics. The allegedly odd-shaped district was allowed to stand.
See also
- Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532
Further reading
- Kravetz, R. F. (2001). "That the District Will Be Held to Be an Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander: Easley v. Cromartie". Duquesne Law Review. 40: 561. ISSN 0093-3058.
- Warren, C. G. (2001). "Towards Proportional Representation? The Strange Bedfellows of Racial Gerrymandering and Equal Protection in Easley v. Cromartie". Mercer Law Review. 53: 945. ISSN 0025-987X.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 1/15/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.