Introduction to Government and Politics “Hunting” for Diversity: Hunt v. Cromartie
$2.95
3 word format
document in english
other law subjects
presentation
date published 06/05/2008
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 0 times
Summary“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.
Table of Contents
- Preceding Hunt v. Cromartie, the case of Shaw v. Hunt built the background for the trial.
- Trying to ensure an African-American voice again, the state of North Carolina and Governor Hunt found themselves on trial, again.
- However, Hunt's strongest defense was built upon color.
- Favoring Hunt in the case, the Supreme Court set major precedents regarding gerrymandering and affirmative action.
- The influential case of Hunt v. Cromartie set critical precedents regarding affirmative action and the practice of gerrymandering.
Latest in the category other law subjects
knowledge network