Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state's creation of additional influence and coalition districts.

For such purposes, the United States Supreme Court has generally held that the determination whether such a change should be precleared depends on whether the change would lead to a "retrogression" in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.

As an initial matter, the Supreme Court found that the private intervenors were properly allowed to intervene pursuant to Fed.

Kennedy concurred, arguing that Thomas said that while he continued to adhere to the views expressed in his opinion concurring in the judgment in Holder v Hall (1994) 512 US 874—in which he had said, among other matters, that the court's expansive reading of the Voting Rights Act had involved the federal judiciary in dividing the nation into racially segregated electoral districts—he joined the court's opinion in the case at hand, because it was fully consistent with the court's § 5 precedents.