Joan Growe, Secretary of State of Minnesota, et al. v. James Emison, et al. (507 U.S. 25)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 23, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 507 U.S. 25 · 113 S. Ct. 1075
- Decided
- February 23, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1992
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. This case raises important issues regarding the propriety of the District Court’s pursuing reapportionment of Minnesota’s state legislative and federal congressional districts in the face of Minnesota state-court litigation seeking similar relief, and regarding the District Court’s conclusion that the state court’s legislative plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. r — l In January 1991, a group of Minnesota voters filed a state-court action against the Minnesota Secretary of State and other officials responsible for administering elections, claiming that the State’s congressional and legislative districts were malapportioned, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 4, §2, of the Minnesota Constitution. Cotlow v. Growe, No. C8-91-985. The plaintiffs asserted that the 1990 federal census results revealed a significant change in the distribution of the state population, and requested that the court declare the current districts unlawful and draw new districts if the legislature failed to do so. In February, the parties stipulated that, in light of the new census, the challenged districting plans were unconstitutional. The Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a Special Redistricting Panel (composed of one appellate judge and two…
Excerpt of a 31,401-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.