Easley v. Cromartie

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Easley v. Cromartie
ArgueDate = November 27
ArgueYear = 2000
DecideDate = April 18
DecideYear = 2001
FullName = Easley v. Martin Cromartie, et al.
USVol = 532
USPage = 234
Citation =
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = The District Court's conclusion that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings.
SCOTUS = 1994-2005
Majority = Breyer
JoinMajority = Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent = Thomas
JoinDissent = Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy
LawsApplied =

"Easley v. Cromartie", 532 US 234 (2001) was a U.S. Supreme Court case. The court's ruling on April 18, 2001 stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering. (Case No. 99-1864).

The High Court held in the case that as Southern blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party, North Carolina's 12th Congressional District was drawn based upon voting behavior, instead of upon racial characteristics. The odd-shaped district was allowed, the Court ruled, to stand. Critics of this ruling found this to be a case of judicial nitpicking and that the Court had in essence allowed the previously-banned practice of concentrating a racial group into a single district.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Kravetz |first=R. F. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2001 |month= |title=That the District Will Be Held to Be an Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander: "Easley v. Cromartie" |journal=Duquesne Law Review |volume=40 |issue= |pages=561 |issn=0093-3058 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Warren |first=C. G. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2001 |month= |title=Towards Proportional Representation? The Strange Bedfellows of Racial Gerrymandering and Equal Protection in "Easley v. Cromartie" |journal=Mercer Law Review |volume=53 |issue= |pages=945 |issn=0025-987X |url= |accessdate= |quote=