State v. Skorich

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Attorney General’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is entitled to considerable deference and that “Congress was aware of the Attorney General’s view in this regard, and implicitly approved it, when it reenacted the Voting Rights Act in 1982”
• noting that Attorney General’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is entitled to considerable deference and that “Congress was aware of the Attorney General’s view in this regard, and implicitly approved it, when it reenacted the Voting Rights Act in 1982”
• noting that the Attorney General’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is entitled to considerable deference and that “Congress was aware of the Attorney General’s view in this regard, and implicitly approved it, when it reenacted the Voting Rights Act in 1982”
• noting that the Attorney General’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is entitled to considerable deference and that “Congress was aware of the Attorney General’s view in this regard, and implicitly approved it, when it reenacted the Voting Rights Act in 1982”
• “The burden of proving absence of discriminatory purpose and effect is on [the covered jurisdiction].”
• purpose to minimize future bláck voting strength is impermissible under §5

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).