About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

30 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 79 (1996-1997)
The Three-Judge District Court in Voting Rights Litigation

handle is hein.journals/umijlr30 and id is 87 raw text is: THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN VOTING RIGHTS LITIGATIONt Michael E. Solimine* In recent Terms the Supreme Court has heard numerous appeals from the decisions of three-judge district courts in controversial Voting Rights Act cases as well as in challenges to congressional districts designed allegedly to facilitate the election of members of minority groups. Although the cases themselves have been followed closely, the institution of the three-judge district court itself has received relatively little attention, even though Congress passed legislation in 1976 that restricted the three-judge court's jurisdiction to reapportionment and certain Voting Rights Act cases. In this Article, Professor Solimine argues that numerous problems attend the formation and operation of such courts. He reviews both structur- al problems and administrative problems. He concludes that the court should be abolished, permitting a single district judge to consider the cases currently litigated before such courts with normal appellate review thereafter. He considers alternative reforms and critically examines proposals to expand the current jurisdiction of three-judge district courts. [Aipportionment is a very high percentage of politics with a very small admixture of definable principle. -Alexander Bickel' Legislative districting is highly political business. -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg2 t © 1996 Michael E. Solimine, all rights reserved. * Donald P. Klekamp Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law. B.A. 1978, Wright State University; J.D. 1981, Northwestern University School of Law. I would like to thank Chief Judge Gilbert Merritt and Judge Nathaniel Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Judge Walter Rice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Pamela Karlan for discussing the three-judge district court with me; Mark Chumley and Bryan Pacheco for their research assistance; and Barry Friedman, Sam Issacharoff, Steve Justice, Judy McKenna, Richard Pildes, Richard Saphire, and Joseph Tomain for commenting on an earlier draft of this Article. I am particularly grateful to James Walker, not only for his comments on an earlier draft, but for supplying me with information from the United States Supreme Court Data Base. 1. Alexander Bickel, The Durability of Colegrove v. Green, 72 YALE L.J. 39, 42 (1962). 2. Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 2499 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), prob. juris. noted sub nom. Abrams v. Johnson, 116 S. Ct. 1823 (1996).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most