Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision of such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the rule 52(a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity their reasoning and the subsidiary factual conclusions underlying their reasoning.... Perhaps in no other area of the law is as much specificity in reasoning and fact finding required, as shown by our frequent remands of voting dilution cases to district courts.
I have already commented about the history of discrimination, and about the lack of evidence pointing at Westwego specifically, but certainly Westwego is not an island in itself in the history of Louisiana in terms of discrimination. But, I say again I have said before, that for the last 20 years—and certainly, I confidently say for 15—there is no indication that that continues.
the majority vote requirements, insofar as I know, is virtually universal in the United States. There aren't many—certainly in Louisiana, historically. I don't know anywhere in Louisiana; certainly it would have to be by majority vote requirement, and if that can be held by the Congress somehow to indicate some vote condition, that mystifies me.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |