Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Allen v. Milligan , 599 U. S. 1 (2023), [ note 1 ] is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondents argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters.
The 2024 Allen v. Milligan decision dictated a new map to be drawn to be African American-majority; as such, the 4th district contributes parts of Shreveport, half of DeSoto Parish, and most of Natchitoches and St Landry Parishes to the redrawn 6th district, while absorbing Lincoln, Jackson, Winn, and part of Rapides Parish from the 5th. [4]
In the case of Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the state's current map violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301) and needs to be redrawn with an additional black-majority district.
It was a legitimate surprise when the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court ordered Alabama’s conservative-dominated state government last month to redraw its congressional map and include ...
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the previous finding that the map discriminated against Black Alabamians. In a 5–4 decision in Allen v. Milligan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's liberal wing (Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) and ruled in favor of ...
Louisiana Republicans are relying on the Supreme Court’s rejection of affirmative action in their bid to dismantle the 1965 law.
Allen v. Milligan, No. 21-1086, 599 U.S ... but the majority of the map accurately depicts covered jurisdictions before the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby ...
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama did in fact illegally dilute the power of Black voters. [107] The Alabama Legislature defied the Supreme Court, drawing a map with only a single Black-majority district, rather than the ruling's minimum two districts. [108]