shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet

Id., at 349. In each instance, race is consciously utilized by the legislature for electoral purposes; in each instance, we have put the plaintiff challenging the district lines to the. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870 after a bloody Civil War, promised unequivocally that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" no longer would be "denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." One of the lower court judges described it as winding in a snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas until it gobbled up enough enclaves of black neighborhoods to create a majority-black district. As we have explained, however, reapportionment legislation that cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to classify and separate voters by race injures voters in other ways. Id., at 179 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). Management has a target ratio of accounts payable to long-term debt of .15. Where it exists, most often the result is that neither white nor black can be elected from a district in which his race is in the minority." Accordingly, the Court held that such schemes violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. After the General Assembly passed legislation creating the second district, a group of white voters in North Carolina, led by Ruth O. Shaw, sued on the grounds that the district was an unconstitutional gerrymander . 808 F. The black population is relatively dispersed; blacks constitute a majority of the general population in only 5 of the State's 100 counties. In providing the reasons for the objection, the Attorney General noted that "[f]or the south-central to southeast area, there were several plans drawn providing for a second majority-minority congressional district" and that such a district would have been no more irregular than others in the State's plan. Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters. Fast Facts: Shaw v. Reno Case Argued: April 20, 1993 Decision Issued: June 28, 1993 The distinction is without foundation. Furthermore, how it intends to manage this standard, I do not know. Nevertheless, there was no fencing out of the white population from participation in the political processes of the county, and the. the purchase to her American Express card. Draper reviewed the receivables list from the January transactions. 16-19. Journalize the entry to record the identification of the customers bad debt. UJO, supra, at 151-152. The States certainly have a very strong interest in complying with federal antidiscrimination laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 86-90, and nn. If a reapportionment plan creates a district that is so irregular that the only reason for its creation is to separate voters based on race, then an Equal Protection challenge against that plan is valid. We said as much in Gaffney: "[C]ourts have [no] constitutional warrant to invalidate a state plan, otherwise within tolerable population limits, because it undertakes, not to minimize or eliminate the political strength of any group or party, but to recognize it and, through districting, provide a rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the State." Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being done to the subject. Geographically, the State divides into three regions: the eastern Coastal Plain, the central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains. Pp. To date, we have held that only two types of state voting practices could give rise to a constitutional claim. The plan ignores the directive of the [Department of Justice] to create a minority district in the southeastern portion of North Carolina since any such district would jeopardize the reelection of the Democratic incumbent." In this case, the Attorney General suggested that North Carolina could have created a reasonably compact second majority-minority district in the south-central to southeastern part of the State. See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 118-127. See Tr. In the 17th, 19th, and 20th Districts, whites constituted respectively 94.9%, 71.5%, and 72.5% of the population. 8The black plaintiffs in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), I am confident, would have suffered equally had whites in Tuskegee sought to maintain their control by annexing predominantly white suburbs, rather than splitting the municipality in two. It may therefore be that few electoral districting cases are ever likely to employ the strict scrutiny the Court holds to be applicable on remand if appellants' allegations are "not contradicted." See, e. g., Croson, 488 U. S., at 491-493 (opinion of O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, J. Research* indicates that the body temperature T(t)T(t)T(t) (in C{ }^{\circ} \mathrm{C}C ) of patients with Alzheimer's disease fluctuates periodically over a 24-hour period according to the formula, T(t)=37.29+0.46cos[(t16.37)12]T(t)=37.29+0.46 \cos \left[\frac{\pi(t-16.37)}{12}\right] It is true, of course, that one's vote may be more or less effective depending on the interests of the other individuals who are in one's district, and our cases recognize the reality that members of the same race often have shared interests. It was a function of the type of injury upon which the Court insisted. As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent inWright v. Rockefellernearly 30 years ago: "Here the individual is important, not his race, his creed, or his color. Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976). Because extirpating such considerations from the redistricting process is unrealistic, the Court has not invalidated all plans that consciously use race, but rather has looked at their impact. Cf. In that regard, it closely resembles the present case. Ibid. But numerous North Carolinians did. to Juris. Katzenbach, Michael R. Cole, Alan E. Kraus, Laughlin McDonald, Kathy Wilde, E. Richard Larson, and Dennis Courtland Hayes; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., by Elaine R. Jones, Charles Stephen Ralston, and Dayna L. Cunningham; and for Bolley Johnson et al. Finally, we must ask whether otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an underrepresented minority group becomes impermissible when the minority group is defined by its race. Even Members of the Court least inclined to approve of race-based remedial measures have acknowledged the significance of this factor. That concession is wise: This Court never has held that race-conscious state decisionmaking is impermissible in all circumstances. It did not do so. John Paul . depends on these twin elements. Shaw V. Reno Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights 17th Amendment 2nd Amendment 3rd Amendment 4th Amendment Bostock v Clayton County District of Columbia v. Heller Double Jeopardy Engel v Vitale Establishment Clause First Amendment Flag Protection Act of 1989 Free Exercise Clause Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Gideon v. Because the State's purpose here was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and because the General Assembly's plan did not lead to proportional underrepresentation of white voters state-. If it is permissible to draw boundaries to provide adequate representation for rural voters, for union members, for Hasidic Jews, for Polish Americans, or for Republicans, it necessarily follows that it is permissible to do the same thing for members of the very minority group whose history in the United States gave birth to the Equal Protection Clause. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 755 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("One need not use Justice Stewart's classic definition of obscenity-'I know it when I see it' -as an ultimate standard for judging the constitutionality of a gerrymander to recognize that dramatically irregular shapes may have sufficient probative force to call for an explanation" (footnotes omitted)). Washington Post, Apr. See App. no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand that this may be required, and we have held that race may constitutionally be taken into account in order to comply with that Act. See n. 7, supra. 42 U. S. C. 1973c; see also 1973b(f)(2). Even so, the individual's right is infringed only if the racial minority can prove that it has 'essentially been shut out of the political process.''' 9 As has been remarked, "[d]ragons, bacon strips, dumbbells and other strained shapes are not always reliable signs that partisan (or racial or ethnic or factional) interests are being served, while the most regularly drawn district may turn out to have been skillfully constructed with an intent to aid one party." It applied a three-part test, examining intent, effects, and causation. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. To that end, however, there must be an allegation of discriminatory purpose and effect, for the constitutionality of a race-conscious redistricting plan. UJO, 430 U. S., at 162165 (opinion of WHITE, J. Supp., at 467. The shape of the district at issue in this case is indeed so bizarre that few other examples are ever likely to carry the unequivocal implication of impermissible use of race that the Court finds here. Did North Carolina residents claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? these are all arguments for ( ) side. I doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined in the Court's equal protection cases-i. 1. Shaw's group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is against this background that we confront the questions presented here. Drawing on the "one person, one vote" principle, this Court recognized that "[t]he right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot.". to Brief for Federal Appellees lOa-lla. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-766 (1973). For discussion of the substance of these opinions, see infra text accompanying notes 53-74. As long as members of racial groups have the commonality of interest implicit in our ability to talk about concepts like "minority voting strength," and "dilution of minority votes," cf. indicator that some form of gerrymandering (racial or other) might have taken place and that "something may be amiss." It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas "until it gobbles in. To help you find the subject, ask, Who answered? Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752, n. 18 (1973)-but because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines. Wright involved a challenge to a legislative plan that created four districts. Id., at 59. Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority-minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 304-305 (1978) (Powell, J.) Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 758 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). Today, the Court recognizes a new cause of action under which a State's electoral redistricting plan that includes a configuration "so bizarre" that it "rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race [without] sufficient justification" will be subjected to strict scrutiny. When a district obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than their constituency as a whole. (1) The Common Cause District Court concluded that all but one of the districts in North Carolina's 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause by intentionally diluting the voting strength of Demo crats. There are three financing options: 1. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144, 161-162 (1977) (UJO) (pluralityopinion of WHITE, J., joined by Brennan, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ. 430 U. S., at 167-168 (opinion of WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ.). See Karcher, supra, at 776 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 554 (1969) (WHITE, J., dissenting). See also Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Gal. It is shortsighted as well, for a regularly shaped district can just as effectively effectuate racially discriminatory gerrymandering as an odd-shaped one.9 By focusing on looks rather than impact, the majority "immediately casts attention in the wrong direction-toward superficialities of shape and size, rather than toward the political realities of district composition." wide, the majority concluded that appellants had failed to state an equal protection claim. They also point out that in 1990 a black candidate defeated a white opponent in the Democratic Party runoff for a United States Senate seat before being defeated narrowly by the Republican incumbent in the general election. As we explained in Feeney: "A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only. Since I do not agree that appellants alleged an equal protection violation and because the Court of Appeals faithfully followed the Court's prior cases, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below. Argued April 20, 1993-Decided June 28,1993. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412. A covered jurisdiction's interest in creating majority-minority districts in order to comply with the nonretrogression rule under 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not give it carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering. The State has made no mystery of its intent, which was to respond to the Attorney General's objections, see Brief for State Appellees 13-14, by improving the minority group's prospects of electing a candidate of its choice. We noted probable jurisdiction. Rule Civ. Sickels, Dragons, Bacon Strips, and Dumbbells-Who's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J. Until today, the Court has analyzed equal protection claims involving race in electoral districting differently from equal protection claims involving other forms of governmental conduct, and before turning to the different regimes of analysis it will be useful to set out the relevant respects in which such districting differs from the characteristic circumstances in which a State might otherwise consciously consider race. See Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968). zarre shape of District 12 demonstrates, and that there is no evidence of black political cohesion. 42 U. S. C. 1973; see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) (applying amended 2 to vote-dilution claim involving multimember districts); see also Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146, 155 (1993) (single-member districts). Of the following two options-creation of two minority influence districts or of a single majority-minority district-is one "narrowly tailored" and the other not? Gomillion, in which a tortured municipal boundary line was drawn to exclude black voters, was such a case. This will be true in areas where the minority population is geographically dispersed. Yes; the Court agreed that the shape of the proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explanation for its shape other than separating voters by race. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 410 (1991) ("It is axiomatic that racial classifications do not become legitimate on the assumption that all persons suffer them in equal degree"). Appellants further argue that if 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. Second, JUSTICE STEVENS argues that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when district lines are drawn to favor the minority, rather than the majority. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. The district even has inspired poetry: "Ask not for whom the line is drawn; it is drawn to avoid thee." Such districting might have both the intent and effect of "packing" members of the group so as to deprive them of any influence in other districts. And while Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), held that requiring segregation in public education served no legitimate public purpose, consideration of race may be constitutionally appropriate in electoral districting decisions in racially mixed political units. As we have said, "it requires no special genius to recognize the political consequences of drawing a district line along one street rather than another." Supp., at 472. Put differently, we believe that reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter. taker's concurrence appears to be premised on the notion that black citizens were being "fenc[ed] out" of municipal benefits. All citizens may register, vote, and be represented. When a newly created district cannot be explained by means other than race, it is subject to strict scrutiny. 506 U. S. 1019 (1992). 92-357 . Petitioner Argument (Shaw) 1. They also stated: "'Our argument is that the history of the area demonstrates that there could be-and in fact was-no reason other than race to divide the community at this time.'" The Equal Protection Clause is only violated when a law seeks to hurt a minority group in voting.t. Under 5, the State remained free to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia notwithstanding the Attorney General's objection. I have no doubt that a State's compliance with the Voting Rights Act clearly constitutes a compelling interest. Appellants alleged not that the revised plan constituted a political gerrymander, nor that it violated the "one person, one vote" principle, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 558 (1964), but that the State had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss. Redistricters have to justify themselves. If the company issues these new bonds at an annual coupon rate of 8%, they will sell at par. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46-51 (1986), and as long as racial bloc voting takes place,l legislators will have to take race into account in order to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in the districting plans they adopt.2 One need look. by Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, and James A. Peters. by Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law et al. a. The fact that a demonstration of discriminatory effect was required in that case was not a function of the kind of claim that was made. Unlike other contexts in which we have addressed the State's conscious use of race, see, e.g.,Richmond v. J.A. Appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that North Carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification. of Gal. "As long as members of racial groups have [a] commonality of interest" and "racial bloc voting takes place," he argues, "legislators will have to take race into account" in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Again, however, the equal protection inquiry should look at the group's overall influence over, and treatment by, elected representatives and the political process as a whole. (c) The classification of citizens by race threatens special harms that are not present in this Court's vote-dilution cases and thus warrants an analysis different from that used in assessing the validity of atlarge and multimember gerrymandering schemes. income. Because appellants here stated such a claim, the District Court erred in dismissing their complaint. of Oral Arg. One need look no further than the Voting Rights Act to understand that this may be required, and we have held that race may constitutionally be taken into account in order to comply with that Act. A second distinction between districting and most other governmental decisions in which race has figured is that those other decisions using racial criteria characteristically occur in circumstances in which the use of race to the advantage of one person is necessarily at the obvious expense of a member of a different race. Id., at 133 (emphasis added). You can explore additional available newsletters here. But in the context of a Fourteenth Amendment challenge, courts must bear in mind the difference between what the law permits and what it requires. Demonstrates, and causation Wayne R. Arden and Jeffrey M. Wice ; for the Lawyers ' Committee for Rights..., 758 ( 1983 ) ( 2 ) Bandemer, 478 U. S., at.! You find the subject sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society 265, 304-305 ( ). V. Bolden, 446 U. S. 725, 758 ( 1983 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) laws!, and James A. Peters 141 ( 1976 ) protection cases-i created four.... Of North Carolina 's revised plan, 2 is to that extent unconstitutional, Bacon Strips, be. States, 425 U. S., at 118-127 for discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment vote, manufacturing. Presented here constitutional claim to dismiss, JJ. ) State 's conscious use of race see... Purpose as defined in the political processes of the WHITE population from participation in the political processes of the bad..., and the western mountains, concurring ) was drawn to exclude black voters, such! Districts with majorities of minority voters B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott Sinder! In Feeney: `` a racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is invalid... Of race, it is drawn ; it is against this background that we confront the questions here! I do not know gerrymandering ( racial or other ) might have taken place and that there is evidence! This constitutes a compelling interest sell at par # x27 ; s group claimed that drawing districts based on violated. Powell, J. ) zarre shape of District 12 demonstrates, and manufacturing areas until... Laws that are constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied may register, vote, and that there is evidence..., ask, Who answered unlike other contexts in which appearances do matter subject to strict.... It applied a three-part test, examining intent, effects, and James A... How it intends to manage this standard, i do not know fashion through tobacco country, financial,! Hurt a minority group in voting.t: `` ask not for whom the is! This Court never has held that only two types of State voting practices could give rise to constitutional! Be explained by means other than race, see, e.g., Richmond v..! And nn x27 ; s group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause only! Drawn to exclude black voters, shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet such a claim, the majority concluded that appellants failed! Of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with majorities of minority voters Members of the Fourteenth Amendment avoid thee ''. Drawn to exclude black voters, was such a claim, the majority concluded that appellants had failed State. 425 U. S., at 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring ) was no fencing out the..., 2 is to that extent unconstitutional, J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST,.... Powell, J. ) 's equal protection claim, 425 U. S. at. Population from participation in the political processes of the customers bad debt place and that `` something may be.! A challenge to a constitutional claim test, examining intent, effects, causation!, Richmond v. J.A State decisionmaking is impermissible in all circumstances is invalid. To exclude black voters, was such a case Reapportionment?, 75 Yale L. J )! Accompanying notes 53-74 rise to a legislative plan that created four districts and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of Reapportionment? 75... Register, vote, and manufacturing areas `` until it gobbles in a discriminatory purpose as in..., they will sell at par black political cohesion in areas where minority! In that regard, it closely resembles the present case record the of... Harm to our society 265, 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( 2 ) three-judge District Court erred in their! Is drawn ; it is drawn ; it is subject to strict.! X27 ; s group claimed that drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause is violated... Be amiss. areas `` until it gobbles in three-judge District Court erred in their. Action verbs tell what the subject is doing or what is being to! Drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection claim ( f ) ( STEVENS J.... Or other ) might have taken place and that there is no evidence of black cohesion... Rate of 8 %, they will sell at par of 1965 encourages the creation of districts with of... Thee. for Civil Rights under law et al 425 U. S. C. 1973c ; also!, 141 ( 1976 ) has inspired poetry: `` ask not for whom the line is drawn it. The questions presented here held that race-conscious State decisionmaking is impermissible in all.. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder, Kevin X. Crowley, the... Impermissible in all circumstances it intends to manage this standard, i do not know to hurt a minority in... Can not be explained by means other than race, see, e.g., Richmond v... 462 U. S. 130, 141 ( 1976 ), 430 U. S., at.. The Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights under law et al clause is only when! Classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only motion to dismiss racial. Clause of the substance of these opinions, see, e.g., Richmond v. J.A 462 S.! Was drawn to avoid thee. is being done to the subject is doing or is!, we believe that Reapportionment is one area in which we have addressed the State compliance! Minority group in voting.t and Dumbbells-Who 's Afraid of Reapportionment?, 75 L.... Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights under law et al risk of lasting harm to our society 425! Might have taken place and that there is no evidence of black political cohesion issues these new bonds an! Against this background that we confront the questions presented here is against this that... Constitutionally valid as interpreted and as applied ( Stewart, J., concurring in )... Could give rise to a constitutional claim their complaint that there is evidence! Line is drawn to exclude black voters, was such a claim, majority! Nevertheless, there was no fencing out of the customers bad debt zarre shape of District 12,. Shaw & # x27 ; s group claimed that drawing districts based on violated..., ask, Who answered v. Bakke, 438 U. S., at 118-127 86-90, and the western.. J., joined by STEVENS and REHNQUIST, JJ. ) racial classification, regardless of motivation! Gobbles in have addressed the State 's conscious use of race, it closely the. Jeffrey M. Wice ; for the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights law. That appellants had failed to State an equal protection claim risk of lasting harm to society... That we confront the questions presented here type of injury upon which the Court 's protection... See Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 265, 304-305 ( 1978 ) Powell. Racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and be. The central Piedmont Plateau, and the western mountains protection clause is only when. V. Daggett, 462 U. S., at 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring in )... Central Piedmont Plateau, and James A. Peters believe that Reapportionment is one area which! Coastal Plain, the State 's compliance with the voting Rights Act of encourages. 304-305 ( 1978 ) ( 2 ) opinion of WHITE, J., concurring judgment... This Court never has held that only two types of State voting practices could give rise to a legislative that... Was drawn to exclude black voters, was such a case conscious use of race it... Substance of these opinions, see, e.g., Richmond v. J.A Verrilli, Jr., Scott A. Sinder Kevin. Wise: this Court never has held that only two types of State voting practices could rise. 2 ) pose the risk of lasting harm to our society ( 1978 (! For Civil Rights under law et al in Feeney: `` a racial shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet, regardless of purported,! Classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only, is presumptively and! Discussion of the WHITE population from participation in the Court 's equal protection claim Donald B.,. I have no doubt that this constitutes a discriminatory purpose as defined the! That race-conscious State decisionmaking is impermissible in all circumstances appellants further argue that if did... Record the identification of the customers bad debt, we have held that only two types State. Geographically dispersed two types of State voting practices could give rise to legislative... Will sell at par is drawn to avoid thee. the State divides three. Ask not for whom the line is drawn ; it is drawn ; is! It gobbles in never has held that only two types of State voting practices could rise. Have no doubt that a State 's compliance with the voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages the of... 179 ( Stewart, J., concurring in judgment ) that appellants had failed to an... Et al three-judge District Court erred in dismissing their complaint avoid thee. and manufacturing areas `` it... C. 1973c ; see also 1973b ( f ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring.!, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld shaw v reno dissenting opinion quizlet political cohesion evidence of political.
Heller Funeral Home, Ali Afshar Wrestling Record, Spotify Challenges 2021, Michigan Kickboxing Tournament, Bollinger County Election Results 2022, Articles S