| Thornburg v. Gingles | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 4, 1985 Decided June 30, 1986 | |
| Full case name | Lacy Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al. v. Ralph Gingles, et al. |
| Citations | 478 U.S. 30 (more) 106 S. Ct. 2752; 92 L. Ed. 2d 25; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 121; 54 U.S.L.W. 4877; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1082 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Gingles v. Edmisten], 590 F. Supp. 345 (E.D.N.C. 1984). |
| Holding | |
| The inquiry into the existence of vote dilution caused by submergence in a multimember district is district specific. A successful claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires evidence that an affected minority group is sufficiently large to elect a representative of its choice, that the minority group is politically cohesive, and white majority voters cast their ballots sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidates of the minority group. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan (Parts I, II, III–A, III–B, IV–A, V), joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Plurality | Brennan (Part III–C), joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Plurality | Brennan (Part IV–B), joined by White |
| Concurrence | White |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in judgment), joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Marshall, Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| Voting Rights Act § 2 | |
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice." The ruling resulted in the invalidation of districts in the North Carolina General Assembly and led to more single-member districts in state legislatures.