Search icone
Search and publish your papers

Introduction to Government and Politics “Hunting” for Diversity: Hunt v. Cromartie

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

Psychiatric Hospital
Level
General public
Study
psychology
School/University
Saint...

About the document

Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
presentations
Pages
3 pages
Level
General public
Accessed
0 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction
  2. Ensuring an African American voice
  3. Hunt's strongest defense
  4. Favoring Hunt in the case
  5. Conclusion
  6. Work cited

?A reapportionment plan that draws in persons, who may have very little in common but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid? (Rosenschein). Clearly, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor understood the weight of her decisions. With those words in mind, O'Connor along with the other eight Justices deliberated over the case of Hunt v. Cromartie. She delivered the aforementioned warning in the previous case of Shaw v. Hunt, which established the basis and background for this trial. The appellee in Hunt v. Comartie, Cromartie, and his lawyers argued that the state of North Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. On the other hand, Governor Hunt and his team of lawyers insisted that the new district was an instance of political gerrymandering, a legal means to ensure their political party (Democrats) maintained a seat in the House of Representatives.

[...] As a result, for me, the end justifies the means. The influential case of Hunt v. Cromartie set critical precedents regarding affirmative action and the practice of gerrymandering. The case of Shaw v. Hunt established the basis and background for this trial. In Hunt v. Cromartie, Cromartie and his lawyers argued that the state of North Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. On the other hand, Governor Hunt and his team of lawyers insisted that the new district was an instance of political gerrymandering, a [...]


[...] Ultimately, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found in favor of Governor Hunt and the State of North Carolina on April Justices Rhenquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented. In their dissent, they cited the lack of contiguity in the new boundary. In addition, they believed that this case once again fell under the condemned practice of racial gerrymandering. Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted as the majority. In his majority opinion, Justice Breyer explained that the court had been persuaded by the difference between voting registration and voting behavior. [...]

Top sold for other law subjects

Co-Ownership and joint tenancy problem question

 Law & contracts   |  Other law subjects   |  Presentation   |  08/13/2008   |   .doc   |   5 pages

Recent documents in other law subjects category

Intellectual Property Code - Proportional remuneration

 Law & contracts   |  Other law subjects   |  Presentation   |  07/11/2018   |   .doc   |   4 pages

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

 Law & contracts   |  Other law subjects   |  Presentation   |  07/04/2016   |   .doc   |   2 pages