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 July 03, 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