Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
Term: 2018-2019
Important Dates
Argument: March 18, 2019
Decided: June 17, 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Brett Kavanaugh


Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill is a case that appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's 2018-2019 term. The judgment under review came from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This was the second time the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, having first heard it in 2017 as Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections.[1]

On June 17, 2019, the court found the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander. The high court ruled 5-4, with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. As a result of the high court's ruling, the lower court order implementing a remedial district plan was upheld. Click here for more information on the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: At issue were 11 state legislative districts, which a federal district court struck down in 2018 as illegal racial gerrymanders. The plaintiffs (the Virginia House of Delegates, the state board of elections, and other state officials) contested this, arguing instead that the district court applied improper standards in making its ruling.
  • The issue: The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Virginia House of Delegates, which presented the following questions to the high court: "(1) Whether the district court conducted a proper 'holistic' analysis of the majority-minority Virginia House of Delegates districts under the prior decision in this case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, even though it ignored a host of evidence, including the overwhelming majority of district lines, which were carried over unchanged from the prior map; the geographic location of population disparities, which imposed severe redistricting constraints and directly impacted which voters were moved into and out of the majority-minority districts; and the degree of constraint the House’s Voting Rights Act compliance goals imposed in implementation, which was minimal; (2) whether the Bethune-Hill 'predominance' test is satisfied merely by a lengthy description of ordinary Voting Rights Act compliance measures; (3) whether the district court erred in relying on expert analysis it previously rejected as unreliable and irrelevant and expert analysis that lacked any objective or coherent methodology; (4) whether the district court committed clear error in ignoring the entirety of the house’s evidentiary presentation under the guise of credibility determinations unsupported by the record and predicated on expert testimony that should not have been credited or even admitted; (5) whether Virginia’s choice to draw 11 'safe' majority-minority districts of around or above 55 percent black voting-age population ('BVAP') was narrowly tailored in light of the discretion the Voting Rights Act afforded covered jurisdictions to 'choose to create a certain number of ‘safe’ districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice,' under Georgia v. Ashcroft, or the requirement the Voting Rights Act, as amended, imposed on covered jurisdictions 'to prove the absence of racially polarized voting' to justify BVAP reductions towards or below 50 percent BVAP; (6) whether the district court erred in ignoring the district-specific evidence before the house in 2011 justifying safe districts at or above 55 percent BVAP; and (7) whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal."
  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion on June 17, 2019, the court found the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander. As a result of the high court's ruling, the lower court order implementing a remedial district plan was upheld.


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Background

    See also: Redistricting in Virginia

    First consideration by the Supreme Court

    See also: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections

    On December 22, 2014, opponents of Virginia's legislative district map filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that 12 state legislative districts constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. According to the Oyez Project at the ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, the district court rejected this argument:[2]

    “ The district court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged district. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district, in doing so the General Assembly was pursuing a compelling state interest and its use of race was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.[3] ”
    —Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law

    The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case (Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections) on June 6, 2016.[4][5]

    On March 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, finding that the district court "employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of the 12 districts." For these 11 districts, the high court remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. The court ruled 7-1 on the case. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Associate Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment, filing a separate opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and dissented in part. Kennedy wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[6][7]

    “ The challengers first argue that the District Court misunderstood the relevant precedents when it required the challengers to establish, as a prerequisite to showing racial predominance, an actual conflict between the enacted plan and traditional redistricting principles. The Court agrees with the challengers on this point. ... The challengers submit that the District Court erred further when it considered the legislature's racial motive only to the extent that the challengers identified deviations from traditional redistricting criteria that were attributable to race and not to some other factor. In the challengers' view, this approach foreclosed a holistic analysis of each district and led the District Court to give insufficient weight to the 55 percent [black voting age population] target and other relevant evidence that race predominated. Again, this Court agrees."[3] ”
    —Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of the remaining challenged district (District 75), arguing that the lower court's ruling was consistent with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, a case decided by the high court in 2015. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama established that "where a challenger succeeds in establishing racial predominance, the burden shifts to the State to 'demonstrate that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.'"[6][8]

    District court proceedings and second consideration by the Supreme Court

    Upon remand, the district court ruled 2-1 on June 26, 2018, that 11 state legislative districts had been subject to racial gerrymandering and needed to be redrawn. The court gave the legislature until October 30, 2018, to draw new district lines. Writing for the majority, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said, "Overwhelming evidence in this case shows that, contrary to this constitutional mandate, the state has sorted voters into districts based on the color of their skin." Governor Ralph Northam (D) convened a special session of the legislature, beginning August 30, 2018, to redraw the maps. The legislature was unable to adopt a remedial map during this session. Consequently, the federal district court appointed a special master, Bernard Grofman, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, to draft a remedial map. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to take up the case again on November 13, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the Virginia House of Delegates requested that the high court stay lower-court proceedings pending resolution of the case. The high court denied this request on January 8, 2019.[9][10][11][12][13]

    On January 22, 2019, the district court issued an order directing Grofman to finalize the district plan for the House of Delegates selected by the court. Pending appeals, the remedial map was slated to apply to the 2019 election cycle. House Speaker Kirk Cox (R) criticized the plan: "The Eastern District Court selected a series of legally indefensible redistricting modules that attempts to give Democrats an advantage at every turn. The modules selected by the Court target senior Republicans, myself included, without a substantive basis in the law." Meanwhile, Democratic attorney Marc Elias, who initiated the suit, praised the order: "In Virginia, the Federal Court in the long-running state house redistricting case has ordered the special master to adopt the alternative-map configuration we advocated. We are one important step closer to the end of the GOP's racial gerrymander." At the time of the ruling, Republicans controlled the House of Delegates, holding 51 seats to Democrats' 48. Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said, "[The remedial map] would nearly guarantee a Democratic takeover of the House of Delegates."[14]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
         		1. Whether the district court conducted a proper “holistic” analysis of the majority-minority Virginia House of Delegates districts under the prior decision in this case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, even though it ignored a host of evidence, including the overwhelming majority of district lines, which were carried over unchanged from the prior map; the geographic location of population disparities, which imposed severe redistricting constraints and directly impacted which voters were moved into and out of the majority-minority districts; and the degree of constraint the House’s Voting Rights Act compliance goals imposed in implementation, which was minimal; 2. whether the Bethune-Hill “predominance” test is satisfied merely by a lengthy description of ordinary Voting Rights Act compliance measures; 3. whether the district court erred in relying on expert analysis it previously rejected as unreliable and irrelevant and expert analysis that lacked any objective or coherent methodology; 4. whether the district court committed clear error in ignoring the entirety of the house’s evidentiary presentation under the guise of credibility determinations unsupported by the record and predicated on expert testimony that should not have been credited or even admitted; 5. whether Virginia’s choice to draw 11 “safe” majority-minority districts of around or above 55 percent black voting-age population (“BVAP”) was narrowly tailored in light of the discretion the Voting Rights Act afforded covered jurisdictions to “choose to create a certain number of ‘safe’ districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice,” under Georgia v. Ashcroft, or the requirement the Voting Rights Act, as amended, imposed on covered jurisdictions “to prove the absence of racially polarized voting” to justify BVAP reductions towards or below 50 percent BVAP; 6. whether the district court erred in ignoring the district-specific evidence before the house in 2011 justifying safe districts at or above 55 percent BVAP; and 7. whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal.

    Outcome

    On June 17, 2019, the court issued its ruling, finding the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander.[15]

    The high court ruled 5-4, with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. As a result of the high court's ruling, the lower court order implementing a remedial district plan was upheld.[15]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote:[15]

    “ The House lacks standing to represent the State’s interests. The State itself had standing to press this appeal, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 62, and could have designated agents to do so, Hollingsworth, 570 U. S., at 710. However, the State did not designate the House to represent its interests here. Under Virginia law, authority and responsibility for representing the State’s interests in civil litigation rest exclusively with the State’s Attorney General. ... Throughout this litigation, the House has purported to represent only its own interests. The House thus lacks authority to displace Virginia’s Attorney General as the State’s representative. ... In short, the State of Virginia would rather stop than fight on. One House of its bicameral legislature cannot alone continue the litigation against the will of its partners in the legislative process.[3] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh. Alito argued that the District Court's districting plan would harm the House in a way to give it standing to appeal the case.[15]

    In his dissent, Alito wrote:[15]

    “ As far as the House’s standing, we must assume that the districting plan enacted by the legislature embodies the House’s judgment regarding the method of selecting members that best enables it to serve the people of the Commonwealth. ... It therefore follows that discarding that plan and substituting another inflicts injury in fact. [3] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[16]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[17]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill," accessed February 20, 2019
    2. ↑ Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections," accessed June 28, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court takes case claiming racial gerrymandering in Virginia," June 6, 2016
    5. ↑ The Washington Post, "A third redistricting lawsuit targets Va. elections map," September 14, 2015
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections: Opinion," March 1, 2017
    7. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections," accessed March 1, 2017
    8. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court calls for further review of Virginia legislative map," March 1, 2017
    9. ↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court rules against Va. House in racial gerrymandering case, orders new districting plan by Oct. 30," June 26, 2018
    10. ↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Va. House GOP asks U.S. Supreme Court to delay court-ordered redistricting in racial gerrymandering case," July 9, 2018
    11. ↑ Governing, "Gerrymandered Virginia House Districts to Be Redrawn in Special Session," August 23, 2018
    12. ↑ Associated Press, "Judges set timeline for new Virginia legislative map," October 22, 2018
    13. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court declines to intervene in Virginia redistricting dispute," January 8, 2019
    14. ↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court picks redrawn Va. House map that boosts Democrats' chances of taking control," January 23, 2019
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill," June 17, 2019
    16. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, argued March 18, 2019
    17. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, argued March 18, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Virginia_House_of_Delegates_v._Bethune-Hill&oldid=9117260"