Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<p>In 2003 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Georgia v. Ashcroft, a case involving the redistricting of Georgia's state Senate under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This paper traces the course of the Georgia litigation from the legislature through the Supreme Court, examining its impact on the future of retrogression analysis under Section 5 and its impact on the future of the section itself. In addition, it looks at the opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the context of competing claims regarding the progress, or lack of progress, in the racial politics of the South, claims which arose again and again in the course of the litigation. The author concludes that O'Connor's re-working of the Section 5 standards was an attempt, whether successful or not, to overcome an inherent paradox of minority voting rights in the contemporary South.</p>
Southeastern Geographer – University of North Carolina Press
Published: May 14, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.