Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

At the time of the case, Virginia had historically been a Republican-favored state but in the last few decades, has seen a shift towards the left. Republicans had managed to hold slim margins in the state legislature despite not having won a statewide election since 2009. In April 2011, the Virginia General Assembly passed the redistricting plan. The plan received broad bipartisan support, including from most members of the Legislative Black Caucus. In June 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice granted preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, concluding the plan did not diminish minority voting strength. This case arose when Virginia voters filed a lawsuit to challenge the twelve new legislative districts, drawn up by the controlling Republican legislative bodies in 2011, "as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders." It defined predominance as requiring an "actual conflict between traditional redistricting criteria and race". The three-judge panel found that race did predominate for "District 75," though the panel upheld the district "because the legislature's use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest". The panel explained the state had "a strong basis in evidence" to believe that a 55% BVAP floor was required to avoid retrogression. ==Opinion of the Court==

In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when it determined that race did not predominate in eleven of the twelve legislative districts. While Shaw I could plausibly be read to require a conflict with traditional districting principles, Miller and Shaw II clarified that strict scrutiny can apply to redistricting plans even when they appear to respect traditional districting principles: The State's theory in this case is irreconcilable with Miller and Shaw II...The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit misshapen districts. It prohibits unjustified racial classifications. The Court also held that the district court correctly determined that legislature did not violate the constitution when drawing the boundaries of District 75. The challengers only contested the finding that the state narrowly tailored its use of race to "avoid retrogression", but did not contest that compliance with the VRA was a compelling state interest, so this was assumed but not decided. The State had "good reasons to believe" the 55% target was necessary to comply with the VRA. This satisfied the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus "strong basis in evidence" standard for narrow tailoring. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Dissents Clarence Thomas would have ruled against District 75 because it went further than necessary to comply with Section 5 leading to a result "fundamentally at odds with our 'color-blind' Constitution". Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment, writing separately to say that he would have held that all the majority-minority districts must satisfy strict scrutiny. ==Aftermath==

Following the remanded hearings, in which the District Court still held that the redistricting was an unconstitutional gerrymandering, the state of Virginia issued a statement that it would not seek additional judicial relief. However, the Virginia House of Representatives instead attempted to appeal on behalf of the state, creating a new case, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (Docket 18-281). This appeal was directly petitioned to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for appeal. On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its ruling, dismissing the appeal on the basis that the House lacked standing to take over the case from the State. In the 5–4 decision, Justice Ginsburg stated that the House, acting alone from Virginia's Senate, did not have standing either directly as a party to the case, or to represent the State's interests. Bethune-Hill may leave an opening for opponents of the VRA to press their argument that the VRA always mandates a constitutionally suspect "racial purpose". Compliance with the VRA has been assumed to be a compelling state interest but the Court did not so hold, and may revisit the issue in a later decision. ==See also==