Thornburg v. Gingles
E952393
Thornburg v. Gingles is a landmark 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the primary legal test for proving vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Thornburg v. Gingles canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11897253 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Thornburg v. Gingles Context triple: [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, keyCase, Thornburg v. Gingles]
-
A.
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
-
B.
Baker v. Carr
Baker v. Carr is a landmark 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that established federal courts’ authority to hear legislative redistricting disputes under the Equal Protection Clause, paving the way for the “one person, one vote” principle.
-
C.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
D.
Smith v. Allwright
Smith v. Allwright was a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racially exclusive primary elections, significantly advancing African American voting rights.
-
E.
Reynolds v. Sims decision
The Reynolds v. Sims decision is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the “one person, one vote” principle by requiring state legislative districts to be roughly equal in population under the Equal Protection Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Thornburg v. Gingles Target entity description: Thornburg v. Gingles is a landmark 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the primary legal test for proving vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
-
A.
Shaw v. Reno
Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
-
B.
Baker v. Carr
Baker v. Carr is a landmark 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that established federal courts’ authority to hear legislative redistricting disputes under the Equal Protection Clause, paving the way for the “one person, one vote” principle.
-
C.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
D.
Smith v. Allwright
Smith v. Allwright was a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racially exclusive primary elections, significantly advancing African American voting rights.
-
E.
Reynolds v. Sims decision
The Reynolds v. Sims decision is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the “one person, one vote” principle by requiring state legislative districts to be roughly equal in population under the Equal Protection Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
multimember legislative districts
ⓘ
single-member districting plans ⓘ |
| arguedDate |
1985-10-08
ⓘ
1985-10-09 ⓘ |
| citation | 478 U.S. 30 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| concurrenceInJudgmentBy |
Sandra Day O’Connor
ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| createdDoctrine |
Gingles preconditions
ⓘ
three-part test for vote dilution under Section 2 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1986-06-30 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 83-1968 ⓘ |
| firstPrecondition | The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district ⓘ |
| fullName | Thornburg v. Gingles ⓘ |
| holding |
Plaintiffs can establish a vote dilution claim under Section 2 by satisfying certain preconditions related to minority group size, political cohesion, and white bloc voting
ⓘ
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits election practices that result in vote dilution even without proof of discriminatory intent ⓘ
linked to:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
|
| impact |
Became the foundational precedent for redistricting and minority vote dilution litigation in the United States
ⓘ
Established the primary legal test for proving vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| issue | Whether North Carolina’s multimember legislative districts diluted the voting strength of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
North Carolina
ⓘ
United States ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalArea |
civil rights law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ voting rights ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| opinionBy | William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 30 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Lacy H. Thornburg ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
minority vote fragmentation
ⓘ
racially polarized voting ⓘ vote dilution ⓘ |
| respondent | Junius Irving Gingles ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the district court largely affirmed ⓘ |
| secondPrecondition | The minority group must be politically cohesive ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
ⓘ
linked to:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| term | 1985 Term ⓘ |
| thirdPrecondition | The white majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 478 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Thornburg v. Gingles Description of subject: Thornburg v. Gingles is a landmark 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the primary legal test for proving vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.