Abrams v. Johnson
Significance, The 1990 Census And Georgia's Restricting Plan, Court Upholds Plan, Further Readings
That the plan adopted by the district court redrawing Georgia's legislative districts violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the principle of one-person, one-vote.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Seth P. Waxman and Laughlin McDonald
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Michael J. Bowers and A. Lee Parks
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
19 June 1997
That the redistricting plan adopted by the district court did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
- Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995).
- Inc. v. Pena Adarand Constructors - Significance, Affirmative Action Standards Clarified, Further Readings
- Inc. v. Rhode Island Liquormart (44 ) - Significance, Justice O'connor's Four Part Test, Justice Stevens's Modified Central Hudson Test
- Abrams v. Johnson - Significance
- Abrams v. Johnson - Further Readings
- Abrams v. Johnson - The 1990 Census And Georgia's Restricting Plan
- Abrams v. Johnson - Court Upholds Plan
- Other Free Encyclopedias