Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cromartie v. Hunt

District Court, E.D. North Carolina

Decided March 7, 2000No. 4:96CV104BO(3)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThornburg, District Judge

I join the majority in concluding that the First Congressional district is constitutionally drawn, but respectfully dissent from the reasoning of the majority in reaching that conclusion. I dissent from the majority opinion finding the Twelfth Congressional district to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. I also write to address the issue of Ronald Linville’s right to remain a party plaintiff in this action.

I. BACKGROUND

In early 1997, the North Carolina General Assembly, for the third time in the decade, undertook the responsibility of redrawing the boundaries of North Carolina’s…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Hunt v. CromartieSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Johnson v. De GrandySupreme Court of the United States · 1994

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API