stating that "the Fourteenth Amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiously discriminated against by state law including groups identifiable by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics ”
How later courts described this case
- stating that "the Fourteenth Amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiously discriminated against by state law including groups identifiable by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics ”
- “[T]he Supreme Court has held that this definition [in § 14(c)(2)] limits the meaning of the phrase ‘State or political subdivision’ only when it appears in certain parts of the Act, and that it does not confine the phrase as used elsewhere in the Act”
- “the fourteenth amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiously discriminated against by state law including groups identifiable by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics”
- at-large districting may present constitutional difficulties in certain circumstances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
In Part III of his opinion, my brother RUBIN has ably attempted to resolve the conceded “ambiguity” of Bolden, viz., whether the Fifteenth Amendment applies to voting abuses of the sort here alleged. The entire discussion is dictum, however, because the panel — properly—rests its holding on the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West Supp.1980), as reenacted in 1975, derives from the Fourteenth *557 Amendment, and since all Justices in Bol-den agreed that that Amendment reaches multimember districts adopted “invidiously to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities,” 100 S.Ct. at 1499 (plurality opinion), I concur in the result of Part III.
I join the remainder of the panel opinion.