October Term 2002 · Docket 02-182
Does Georgia's redistricting plan violate federal voting rights laws?
Georgia argues its new map complies with federal law. Opponents claim the plan dilutes Black voting power.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
David Walbert argued for Georgia. He cited six decades of integration policy. He said the new map fits this trend.
John Braden argued for opponents. He claimed the map is a calculated scheme. He said it moves Black voters to weaken their districts.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests how courts compare new voting maps to old ones. Georgia wants its plan approved. Critics say the plan harms Black voters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 29, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
What each side wants
Georgia wants the Court to approve its new district map.
Opponents want the Court to reject the map as discriminatory.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
What each side says
Georgia argues the new map fits national integration policies.
Opponents argue the map lowers Black voting strength.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
What the justices asked
How should courts compare new maps to old practices?
Does moving voters between districts dilute Black influence?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
Why it matters
This case defines how states draw voting districts. It shapes who holds political power. It affects representation for minority communities.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 23-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 23-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 39-27 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 39-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 1-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 1-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 35-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.