• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Supreme Court Rules on Redistricting Case

Lower Court to Review Redistricting and Voting Rights Act

In an important redistricting decision, especially for states covered by section five of the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia State Senate map passed by the legislature in 2001 must be reviewed again by a lower federal court. The state argued that the Department of Justice forced it to make changes not required by the Voting Rights Act. The full decision is available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-182.ZS.html.

In Georgia v. Ashcroft, 02-182, by a 5-4 vote, the Court vacated the district court's ruling that the redistricting plan for the Georgia State Senate violated §5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although the plan did not change the number of majority-minority districts, in three of the districts the black voting age population declined from a range of 55.4 percent to 62.5 percent to a range of 50.3 percent to 50.8 percent. By a 2-1 vote, a district court had agreed with the Department of Justice that these changes constituted retrogression. The Supreme Court held, however, that the district court did not consider all of the relevant factors. "Spreading out minority voters over a greater number of districts creates more districts in which minority voters may have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice," and in which minorities have the ability to influence the electoral process, according to the Supreme Court decision. The Court remanded to the district court for application of the correct standard. This summary is courtesy of the National Association of Attorneys General.