Case Summary
When the Virginia General Assembly redrew its legislative districts in 2011, it intentionally drew twelve districts to ensure each had a black voting age population (BVAP) of at least 55%. A group of Virginia voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging these legislative districts as an impermissible racial gerrymander under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the defendant-state officials defended the districts at issue by arguing they were necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The District Court held that race predominates only where there is an "actual conflict between traditional redistricting criteria and race" and therefore confined its racial gerrymandering analysis to only those portions of new lines that appeared to deviate from traditional criteria.
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District Court's rulings, finding that it misinterpreted the court's precedents on this issue. First, the Court clarified that plaintiffs can demonstrate racial predominance through either circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence of legislative purpose, and such a showing can still be made even when a plan otherwise respects traditional redistricting criteria and principles. Second, the Court explained that racial gerrymandering claims must always be analyzed on a "district-by-district" basis, and courts should never separate out any portion of a district's lines from the rest of it.
Significance: (1) Plaintiffs can still prevail on a racial gerrymandering claim despite the challenged map adhering to traditional redistricting principles; (2) when analyzing a racial gerrymandering claim, courts must look at the allegedly offending district(s) holistically to determine whether race predominated when drawing it as a whole, rather than when drawing individual lines within the district itself.
Case Library
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division - 3:14-cv-00852
- Complaint - 12/22/14
- Order Designating Three-Judge Panel - 1/8/15
- Motion to Intervene by the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell - 1/23/15
- Memorandum in Support of Virginia House of Delegates and Speaker William J. Howell's Motion to Intervene - 1/23/15
- Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene - 2/2/15
- Order Granting Motion to Intervene - 2/3/15
- Answer of Defendant-Intervenors - 2/3/15
- Defendants' Answer - 2/18/15
- Initial Pretrial, Scheduling and Discovery Order - 3/2/15
- Consent Motion to Modify Initial Pretrial, Scheduling and Discovery Order - 3/19/15
- Consent Order Granting Joint Motion to Modify Initial Pretrial, Scheduling and Discovery Order - 3/24/15
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Memorandum in Support - 4/13/15
- Declaration of Ryan Spear in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents - 4/13/15
- Defendant-Intervenors' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel - 4/21/15
- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel - 4/27/15
- Memorandum Opinion RE: Motion to Compel - 5/26/15
- Order - 5/26/15
- Order - 6/9/15
- Amended Complaint - 6/15/15
- Defendant-Intervenors' Pre-Trial Brief - 6/19/15
- Defendants' Trial Brief - 6/19/15
- Plaintiffs' Trial Brief - 6/19/15
- Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Proposed Trial Exhibits - 6/25/15
- Factual Stipulation - 6/26/15
- Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Deposition Designations of Christopher Marston - 6/26/15
- Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Deposition Designations - 7/1/15
- Stipulation Regarding Exhibits - 7/1/15
- Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Proposed Trial Exhibits - 7/1/15
- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Objections to Defendant-Intervenors' Proposed Trial Exhibits - 7/2/15
- Trial Transcript (I) - 7/7/15
- Trial Transcript (II) - 7/8/15
- Trial Transcript (III) - 7/9/15
- Trial Transcript (IV) - 7/13/15
- Order - 7/15/15
- Defendant-Intervenors' Post-Trial Brief - 7/20/15
- Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Opening Brief - 7/20/15
- Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Reply Brief - 7/27/15
- Defendant-Intervenors' Post-Trial Reply Brief - 7/27/15
- Memorandum Opinion - 10/22/15
- Judgment Order - 10/22/15
- Notice of Appeal - 10/26/15
U.S. Supreme Court - No. 15-680 [Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 137 S.Ct. 788 (2017)]
- Jurisdictional Statement - 11/20/15
- Motion of Intervenor-Appellees Virginia House of Delegates and Speaker William J. Howell to Dismiss or Affirm - 12/22/15
- Appellants' Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss or Affirm - 12/30/15
- Appellants' Notice of Supplemental Authority - 2/22/16
- Intervenor-Appellees' Response to Appellants' Notice of Supplemental Authority - 2/23/16
- Brief for Appellants - 9/7/16
- Brief of Amicus Curiae OneVirginia2021: Virginians for Fair Redistricting in Support of Appellants - 9/13/16
- Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur in Part and Affirmance in Part - 9/14/16
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellants - 9/14/16
- Brief of Amici Curiae The NAACP and Virginia NAACP in Support of Appellants - 9/14/16
- Brief of Amici Curiae Campaign Legal Center, et al., in Support of Appellants - 9/14/16
- Brief of Amicus Curiae The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Support of Neither Party - 9/14/16
- Brief for Appellees - 10/17/16
- Brief of Amici Curiae Southeastern Legal Foundation and The Center For Equal Opportunity in Support of Appellees - 10/20/16
- Brief of Amici Curiae Political Scientists Thomas L. Brunell, et al., in Support of Appellees - 10/24/16
- Brief of Amici Curiae National Black Chamber of Commerce and The Hispanic Leadership Fund in Support of Appellees - 10/24/16
- Reply Brief for Appellants - 11/16/16
- Oral Argument Transcript - 12/5/16
- Opinion - 3/1/17