Growe v. Emison

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “Section 2 ‘does not assume the existence of bloc voting: plaintiffs must prove it’ ”
• recognizing that the three Gingles preconditions would apply to a §2 challenge to a single-member district
• recognizing that a federal court may become involved in reapportionment if there is evidence that the appropriate state entity “will fail timely to perform” its duty to reapportion
• holding that although Gingles involved multimember districts, the Gingles threshold requirements should be applied in § 2 vote- dilution challenges to single-member districts
• holding that VRA should be interpreted broadly to cover single member district plans
• holding that Section 2 remedies must respond to “the dilution proximately caused by” a challenged “electoral law, practice, or structure” (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).