Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

 
US Supreme Court: Gomillion v. Lightfoot

364 U.S. 339 (1960), argued 18–19 Oct. 1960, decided 14 Nov. 1960 by vote of 9 to 0; Frankfurter for the Court, Douglas and Whittaker concurring. black voters charged that an Alabama law, changing the city boundaries of Tuskegee in such a way as to exclude all but four or five black voters without eliminating any white ones, was unconstitutional. A federal district court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed unanimously.

That the Supreme Court would in 1960 strike down this obvious race‐based denial of constitutional rights is not so unusual. What is interesting is that Justice Felix Frankfurter had to find a way to skirt his own Colegrove v. Green (1946) holding that questions relating to legislative apportionment are nonjusticiable “political questions” and thus outside the scope of federal judicial power. Frankfurter felt strongly that federal courts should not enter the reapportionment battlefield, but he was equally passionately against racial discrimination. To reconcile these two values, he keyed his Gomillion decision to Fifteenth Amendment rather than to Fourteenth Amendment grounds. “The appellants in Colegrove,” he wrote, “complained only of a dilution of the strength of their votes as a result of legislative inaction over the course of many years. The petitioners here complain that affirmative legislative action deprives them of their votes. … When a legislature thus singles out a readily isolated segment of a racial minority for special discriminatory treatment, it violates the Fifteenth Amendment. … [A]part from all else, these considerations lift this controversy out of the so‐called ‘political’ arena and into the conventional sphere of constitutional litigation” (pp. 346, 347).

Justices William O. Douglas and Charles Whittaker, concurring separately, would have struck down Alabama's action as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gomillion's opening of federal courts to charges of racial gerrymandering reflected no softening in Frankfurter's views that courts should stay out of legislative apportionment issues, but it did encourage urban interests to keep pressing federal courts for relief. A few days after Gomillion, the Court noted probable jurisdiction in Baker v. Carr (1962), which did directly raise the justiciability of reapportionment cases.

See also Race and Racism; Vote, Right to.

— J. W. Peltason

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: Gomillion v. Lightfoot
Top
Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 18–19, 1960
Decided November 14, 1960
Full case name Gomillion et al. v. Lightfoot, Mayor of Tuskegee, et al.
Citations 364 U.S. 339 (more)
364 U.S. 339; 81 S. Ct. 125; 5 L. Ed. 2d 110; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 189
Prior history Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Holding
Electoral district boundaries drawn only to disenfranchise blacks violate the Fifteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Frankfurter, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart
Concurrence Whittaker
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XV

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that found an electoral district created to disenfranchise blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

Contents

Decision

In this landmark voting rights case, the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether or not Act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Alabama passed Act 140 in 1957, which redistricted the city of Tuskegee using a 28 sided figure. This shape excluded all but a handful of potential African-American votes. Justice Frankfurter issued the opinion of the Court, which held that the Act did violate the provision of the 15th Amendment prohibiting states from denying anyone their right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As he said in his concurring opinion, Justice Whitaker would have struck it down under the equal protection clause, which is what the Court later did in Baker v. Carr.

Subsequent history

In the 1980 case Mobile v. Bolden, the court limited its holding in Gomillion so that racially discriminatory effect and intent would be necessary to prompt intervention by federal courts.

See also

External links

  • ^ 364 U.S. 339 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)

 
 

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Gomillion v. Lightfoot" Read more