North Carolina v. Convington

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Supreme Court has never addressed whether a special election may be a proper remedy for an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and reversing a federal district court that ordered special elections without adequately weighing the interests at stake
• noting that the Supreme Court has never addressed whether a special election may be a proper remedy for an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and reversing a federal district court that ordered special elections without adequately weighing the interests at stake
• reminding us that, in fashioning injunctive relief, courts must balance “what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable”
• “Relief in redistricting cases is fashioned in the light of well-known principles of equity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• first quoting NAACP v. Hampton Cnty. Election Comm’n, 470 U.S. 166, 183 n.36 (1985), and then quoting New York v. Cathedral Acad., 434 U.S. 125, 129 (1977)
• discussion of the equities involved in ordering special elections in redistricting context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).