Legal Research on Appendix F
Unannotated Secondary Research
February 11, 1982
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legal Research on Appendix F, 1982. f99b664a-e192-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fa5873c7-c2d9-416a-a5b1-bd2b1fdf067a/legal-research-on-appendix-f. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
I 126
conrouniti.s leex not the b€3t rcpreacntltlve but the
best r.cial or rcligiou! parti3an. Since t}llt rystcD
1r at uar vith the detpcratl.c idcal, it rhould find Do
footing herc. 376 U. 6. 52, 6G-5?..
IlL !t 88 n. 10. fbe cncoursge&ent of .j,ngle-3hot votlng
along raeiaL lincr la Jurt !5 fepa.tirt a" cre.tolal rcgisterr
and gerrynandcrs, .[aJnd rurcly therc lr no n.tional intercat
ln creatlng an lnccntlvc to dcfine po).iticaI groups by
racirl charactcrittic6.. (Stevens, J., coneurring in the
Judgrocnt) . Id. rt 88.
APPEI{DII F
The lttorney G€DcraI,l rnd the courtt. eoDtinued prG3uEption
of ttle cxirtence of racial bloc voting tcnda .to prclervG
tr.ditlonll rrauDptions about group! rlthcr thar thoughtful
scrutiny of individualr.r to3 Anocler Dcp,t of fatc! and
Power v. llanhard, a35 U. S. ?02, 709 (19?g). Th. cntire
prcoccupltion wlth the conccpt of racial bloc votlng, rhcther
in itE h)rpotheEir, proof , rcE atying, or reinforcctEtnt,
'ccDa
to go wide of.the mark ln the context of the right lought to
tbc protected. when thc courts filrt .ddrctrcdt voting light!
tlrc tocue vlr oD individual. votcr y€j.ght. .Thc rightB
rllcgcdly inpaircd rre individual end peraonal ln naturc.'
n vnold. v. Sirus, 377 U. S. 533, 56f (196a). ScG.lro South
v. Petcrt, 339 U. S. 275, 2!0 (1950) (Douglas, ,]., dirrentlDg).
Protcctlon of the individual viotc rppcalr to hlvc bccn the
In RotE, thcrc yas no cvidtence that voting alongracial ]1rfg-"regu1ar1y happens', Onited Jer-ish Organizations,v. crrgy, 430 U. s. taa, to6, (197rl-;6; 6at anI-ftouD uag-fenceo out of the poriticar proccar anc their v6ting itrengt},invidiously ni.ni.mized,' Gaffner- v. cunn]3gg- ffi -u.'sl-iill
754 (]973). Indeed the c5iES uas trfffu rppcn-:.x i.'?he prcsurrption cngaged in by the dictri6t eolEt in ci.tv ornome v. Unitcd Btarcr, a7Z t. Supp. 221 , Zt7, .oniififfi"-ElpErErE-EiTrEfr, t-6 the reatitilr i-coenizia uy ori.i--Jurtlcc Burgcr ln Unj.tcd Jesish oroanizsi.ion *-t"ilil-.,rp.,a'- i8; (Burgcr, c.T. i-EriEEi'Eini',-1-E-d-rr Gprrotnrzes the'guestionablcIneas)' of th€ ecsuiption ar retogni.z"- Uft-fr.Chi€f Justice rnd Julticc El,ackrun. 6ce Connoi v. frnlfr,{31 u. 6. aO7, 127 a. 2 (197?) (Burgci-, cl-E-anfslffi,_.,J. conculllng in part and coocurrini in thc Judgnen;t:
--rh;
finding frll,3 to recognize end rcs$ct t}le r6al.ities ofgroupr of votcr: and.their votiDg inclinatj.ons pc=ceivia byI,lr. Ju6ticc Et?vens ln Ci tv of t{obi }e. See 116 L.. S. SS , Ai .(S'-cvenc, Jr,, concurrril!-in-the fudgn€;EI