Filed Date: Dec. 22, 2014
Closed Date: Sept. 17, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved a constitutional challenge to Virginia's 2011 House of Delegates Redistricting Plan.
On December 22, 2014, 12 voters from 12 districts filed a lawsuit against the Virginia State Board of Elections and Virginia Department of Elections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case was considered by a three-judge panel, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2284, comprised of Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne, District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, and Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Redistricting Plan had racially gerrymandered their districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that the Virginia General Assembly had drawn each of the challenged districts to have an African-American voting age population that met or exceeded a pre-determined 55% threshold. According to the plaintiffs, this threshold was set without justification or consideration for compliance with the Voting Rights Act but instead as an effort to pack the challenged districts and diminish the influence of African-American voters in the surrounding Districts.
The defendants responded by arguing that race was not the predominant consideration in the Redistricting Plan, that the plan was tailored to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and that the Redistricting Plan did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
On October 15, 2015, a divided three-judge panel agreed with the defendants that race was not the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged districts. In the remaining district, the court held that race was a predominant factor but that the General Assembly was pursuing a compelling state interest in a manner narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which held oral arguments in December 2016 and issued an opinion on March 1, 2017. The Court held that the District Court had applied an incorrect legal standard to determine that race did not predominate in 11 challenged districts, clarifying that race may predominate even if a redistricting plan is developed in accordance with traditional redistricting principles. But the Court affirmed the District Court's holding regarding the remaining district, concluding that the predominant use of race in that district was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The Court remanded the case back to the District Court to consider the extent to which race directed the shape of the 11 districts and, if race predominated, whether strict scrutiny was satisfied.
On remand, the three-judge District Court panel held on June 26, 2018 that the plaintiffs demonstrated that race was the predominant factor and that the defendants failed to show that the use of race was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The Virginia House of Delegates and its Speaker (the "House"), who had intervened as defendants, appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court and filed a motion to stay with the District Court while the Supreme Court appeal was pending. The Supreme Court accepted certiorari but the District Court refused to stay its proceedings.
The District Court then appointed a Special Master to assist and advise on the redistricting remedy, and the Special Master filed his first report on December 7, 2018. On December 13, 2018, the House filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to stay the District Court's remedial proceedings while the 2018 Supreme Court appeal was pending, which was denied by the Supreme Court on January 8, 2019. On February 14, 2019, after each party submitted responses and alternatives to the Special Master's report and several court-ordered revisions to the report, the court ordered the state to implement the Special Master's Final Remedial Plan.
The Virginia Attorney General announced that the State would not seek an appeal of the District Court's order, but the Virginia House of Delegates and its Speaker again appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court. On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia House of Delegates and its Speaker lacked standing to pursue an appeal.
On September 17, 2020, the District Court awarded approximately $4 million in attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs.
Summary Authors
Lindsey Johnson (10/19/2022)
Lindsey Johnson (11/7/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4406900/parties/bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-board-of-elections/
Branch, Aria Christine (Virginia)
Braden, Effrem Mark (Virginia)
Abdul-Sabur, Wakeel (Virginia)
Adams, John Christian (Virginia)
Breit, Jeffrey Arnold (Virginia)
Braden, Effrem Mark (Virginia)
Brundage, Jeffrey P. (Virginia)
Cox, Trevor Stephen (Virginia)
Gallagher, Kathleen Angell (Virginia)
Getchell, Earle Duncan (Virginia)
Kallen, Michelle Shane (Virginia)
McChesney, John David (Virginia)
McGuire, Matthew Robert (Virginia)
McKnight, Katherine Lea (Virginia)
Oldham, Dalton Lamar (Virginia)
Pinn, Godfrey Thadeus (Virginia)
Raile, Richard Bryan (Virginia)
Raphael, Stuart Alan (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4406900/bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-board-of-elections/
Last updated Dec. 21, 2024, 2:04 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Virginia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 22, 2014
Closing Date: Sept. 17, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Citizens and registered voters in 12 Virginia House of Delegates Districts
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Virginia House of Delegates, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $4,000,000
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Voting: