Connection lost
Server error
Whitcomb v. Chavis Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that an Indiana multi-member legislative district did not unconstitutionally dilute the votes of a racial minority. The Court found no proof the group was denied political access, reasoning that simply losing elections does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Legal Significance: Established a high evidentiary standard for vote dilution challenges to multi-member districts. Challengers must prove the electoral system denies a minority group access to the political process, not merely that the group experiences political defeat or lacks proportional representation.
Whitcomb v. Chavis Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, residents of a predominantly African American area in Marion County, Indiana, challenged the county’s use of a multi-member, at-large system for electing its 8 state senators and 15 state representatives. They alleged this system unconstitutionally diluted their voting strength in violation of the Equal Protection Clause by allowing their votes to be consistently ‘cancelled out’ by the county’s white majority. A three-judge District Court agreed, finding that an identifiable racial minority with distinct legislative interests resided in a ‘ghetto’ area. The court noted a significant disparity between the area’s share of the county population (17.8%) and the percentage of legislators who resided there (approx. 5-6%). Based on this, and the influence of political parties on nominations, the District Court concluded the system minimized the group’s voting strength and ordered the creation of single-member districts. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a multi-member legislative district that results in fewer resident legislators from a racial minority area than the area’s population would suggest violate the Equal Protection Clause, absent proof that the minority group is denied access to the political process?
No, the Marion County multi-member district does not violate the Equal Protection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a multi-member legislative district that results in fewer resident legislators from a racial minority area than the area’s population would suggest violate the Equal Protection Clause, absent proof that the minority group is denied access to the political process?
Conclusion
This case established a high bar for proving unconstitutional vote dilution, requiring Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Rule
Multi-member districts are not per se unconstitutional. To invalidate such a district Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on distinguishing between unconstitutional vote dilution and mere Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Multi-member legislative districts are not per se unconstitutional under the Equal