On June 17, 2019, the
Supreme Court issued a decision in Virginia House of Delegates v.
Bethune-Hill.
The events leading up to the case began in 2011 when Virginia redrew
legislative districts for the State’s Senate and House of Delegates. Voters in
12 of the impacted House districts sued charging that the redrawn districts
were racially gerrymandered in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Gerrymandering occurs when a legislature divides a geographic area
into political units in a manner that disadvantages African American or Latino/as
voters.
Virginia’s House of Delegates
intervened as a party to the case arguing the constitutional validity of the
challenged districts. After a trial a three-judge panel ruled that race was not
a predominant factor in the creation of eleven of the districts. The panel also
held that race was a predominant factor for the boundaries of the remaining
district, District 75, but the legislature did not violate the Equal Protection
Clause because the legislature's use of race was narrowly tailored to achieving
a compelling state interest.
When the case was
appealed the Supreme Court held that the district court applied an incorrect
legal standard when it determined that race did not predominate in the redistricting.
The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. After
a second trial, a three-judge court, held 2 to 1, that in 11 of the districts
the State had unconstitutionally sorted voters based on their race. The court
enjoined Virginia from conducting any elections until a new redistricting plan
was adopted. A new map
was eventually drawn with the help of a court-appointed expert
A few weeks after the entry
of the trial court’s decision, Virginia’s Attorney General announced that the
State would not pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. Virginia’s House filed its
own appeal. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Gerrymandering
claim. It held instead that Virginia’s House lacked standing to represent State.
The elements of standing are: a discrete and particularized injury that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and is likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision. In this case a Virginia law gave the Attorney
General with exclusive authority to speak for the Commonwealth in civil
litigation.
Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg wrote for the majority an opinion that was joined by Justices Clarence
Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Samuel Alito
dissented in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. The decision means that the State’s
election in November will likely go forward using the new map.
