CASE SUMMARY

When Virginia redrew its congressional districts in 2012 it was a covered jurisdiction under the federal Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) so, in order to secure preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice, the state increased the Black-voting-age-population (“BVAP”) of District 3 from 53.1% to 56.3% citing equal population requirements and the non-retrogression standard under VRA § 5. Meanwhile, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the VRA § 4(b) coverage formula as unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, thereby making Virginia no longer a covered jurisdiction subject to preclearance.

On October 2, 2013, several Virginia voters filed a federal lawsuit against Virginia’s State Board of Elections and Attorney General challenging the state’s 3rd Congressional District as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs argued since Virginia was no longer a covered jurisdiction, the State’s predominant use of race when drawing District 3 could no longer be justified as necessary to comply with the VRA. They sought a judicial declaration that District 3 was unconstitutional, a permanent injunction barring its use in future elections, and for the court to take any actions necessary to determine and implement a legally valid congressional plan.

  • On October 7, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down District 3 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Citing the fact the district had been a safe majority-minority district for two decades and the General Assembly’s admitted use of a “target” 55% BVAP when drawing the district, it explained the State’s use of race was not narrowly tailored to comply with VRA § 5. Several Virginia state representatives who had intervened in the case as defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 30, 2014.
  • On March 30, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its ruling in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which held that efforts to equalize populations across districts cannot serve as the “predominant” consideration when redistricting and that VRA § 5 didn’t require jurisdictions to maintain a specific minority percentage in a given district, only to maintain the minority group’s ability to elect their preferred candidate of choice.
  • On June 5, 2015, the three-judge district court panel again struck down the plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and ordered a remedial plan be enacted. It found the State failed to sufficiently justify their race-based redistricting decisions and rejected their argument that politics, not race, drove their decisions.
  • On September 25, 2015, the district court appointed a special master to draft a remedial congressional plan, which the court adopted on January 7, 2016.
  • On March 4, 2016, several Members of Congress who had intervened as defendants appealed the district court’s remedial decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and sought a stay pending appeal, but the Court declined their request.
  • On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the case on the grounds the Intervening-Members of Congress lacked Article III standing to pursue the appeal since none of them resided in the district as issue, meaning none could demonstrate a cognizable injury for standing purposes.
  • On June 20, 2016, the parties entered a voluntary stipulation of dismissal with the district court which was granted two days later, thereby ending the case.

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division - No. 3:13-cv-678 (Page v. Va. State Bd. of Elections)

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 14-518 (Cantor v. Personhuballah)

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 14-1504 (Wittman v. Personhuballah)