Comp Set

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

2015 Supreme Court case challenging racial gerrymandering in Alabama’s redistricting

Year decided

2015

Vote split

5 to 4

Central constitutional clause

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Main issue

Whether Alabama’s redistricting plan used race as the predominant factor

Legal term for race-based districting

Racial gerrymandering

Standard applied to racial redistricting

Strict scrutiny

Strict scrutiny requires

A compelling interest and narrow tailoring

Law Alabama used to justify its plan

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

What Section 5 of the VRA prohibits

Retrogression in minority voting strength

Retrogression

Weakening minority voters’ ability to elect preferred candidates

Alabama’s redistricting goal

Maintain the same percentage of Black voters in certain districts

Court's view of racial targets

Fixed racial percentages are not required and may be unconstitutional

Lower court’s error

Analyzed racial gerrymandering on a statewide basis

Correct analysis method

Case-by-case analysis for each district

Lower court’s finding on standing

Denied standing to the legislative Black caucus

Supreme Court on standing

Caucus had standing to challenge individual districts

Predominant factor test

Race was prioritized over traditional redistricting principles

Use of race to comply with VRA

Permissible only under strict scrutiny

Did the Court strike down the plan

No it remanded the case

Remanded

Sent back to lower court for reconsideration under new guidelines

Were all districts invalidated

No the Court ordered review district by district

Mechanical racial targets

Unconstitutional if not narrowly justified

Traditional redistricting criteria

Compactness contiguity respect for communities

Relevant precedent

Shaw v. Reno

Outcome for challenged districts

Remanded for individualized evaluation

Equal Protection Clause purpose

Prevents unjustified differential treatment based on race

Future implication

States must justify race use separately in each district

Importance of district-level analysis

Race can have different effects across districts

Narrow tailoring

Using the least restrictive method to meet a compelling goal

Section 5 requirements

Do not require strict racial percentage preservation

Districts challenged in this case

At least 36 of 105 legislative districts

Legal significance

Clarified standards for evaluating racial gerrymanders

Definition of majority-minority district

A district with a majority of voters from a minority group

Alabama’s assumption

Lowering Black voting percentage would violate the VRA

Race as a trumping factor

Treating race as more important than any other criteria

Justice who wrote the majority

Justice Stephen Breyer

Justice who dissented

Justice Antonin Scalia

Purpose of Section 5 preclearance

Prevent changes that weaken minority voting rights

Post Shelby County importance

Case guides how courts handle race in redistricting post VRA changes

Facial challenge

A claim that a law is unconstitutional in all applications

Was this a facial challenge

No plaintiffs challenged specific districts

Why standing matters

Courts require direct harm to hear a case

Racial quota

A fixed numerical racial target

Are quotas constitutional

Only if they meet strict scrutiny which is rare

Problem with fixed racial targets

Treats race as controlling without individualized need

Issue with statewide analysis

Ignores how race functioned in specific districts

Alabama’s VRA justification

Avoid retrogression by preserving racial percentages

Was that justification accepted

Only if supported by strong district-specific evidence

Key precedent set

District-by-district review required in racial gerrymandering cases

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

2017 Supreme Court case reviewing racial gerrymandering in Virginia

Year decided

2017

Vote split

7 to 1

Main issue

Whether Virginia’s use of a 55 percent BVAP target violated the Equal Protection Clause

Number of districts challenged

12 legislative districts

State’s justification for the plan

Compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 of the VRA prohibits

Retrogression in minority voting strength

Retrogression

Weakening minority voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates

Legal standard applied

Strict scrutiny

Strict scrutiny requires

A compelling interest and narrow tailoring

Outcome of the case

One district upheld eleven vacated and remanded

District that was upheld

House District 75

Why HD75 was upheld

State offered specific justification for race use

Why other 11 districts were vacated

Insufficient district-specific evidence for using race

Lower court’s legal error

Required conflict between race and traditional redistricting factors

Correct standard

Race can predominate even if traditional criteria are followed

Racial predominance

Race was the main motivating factor over other considerations

55 percent BVAP rule issue

It was applied uniformly without justification for each district

Mechanical racial targets

Treating race numerically without individualized necessity

Traditional redistricting criteria

Compactness contiguity communities of interest

Did the Court invalidate all districts

No it remanded eleven and affirmed one

Reason for remand

Court needed proper analysis under correct legal standard

Legal significance

Clarified application of strict scrutiny in racial redistricting

Type of challenge brought

District-by-district not statewide

What does vacated mean

Previous ruling is nullified and must be reconsidered

Key takeaway for states

Do not use fixed racial formulas across districts

Justice who wrote the opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Was evidence required for each district

Yes strict scrutiny requires district-specific evidence

Relation to Alabama case

Both emphasized district-by-district review under Equal Protection

Risk of uniform racial targets

Makes race the controlling factor without justification

Voting Rights Act compliance

Must be shown with careful district-level reasoning

Was retrogression uniformly proven

No only one district passed scrutiny

Political vs racial motivation

Courts assess which factor drove the mapmaking

Race-neutral alternatives

Should be considered when drawing districts

Function of expert analysis

Provides evidence to support or challenge racial motivations

Impact on future redistricting

More pressure to avoid formulaic racial thresholds

Warning to lawmakers

Use of race must be individualized and evidence-based

Role of courts

Ensure race is not used mechanically or without scrutiny

How Court defines predominance

Race outweighs other neutral criteria

Legal principle affirmed

Strict scrutiny is needed for all race-based districting

Impact on VRA enforcement

Makes compliance more exacting

Court’s instruction

Functional analysis of race’s use per district

Effect of remand

Court must reexamine facts using correct standard

How traditional criteria relate

Race may still predominate even if traditional lines are preserved

Case outcome summary

One district upheld eleven remanded

Key learning

States must explain why race was used in each district individually

Court's standard of review

District-specific legal analysis

Primary precedent referenced

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

Constitutional clause at issue

Equal Protection Clause

What states must avoid

Using race as a shortcut to comply with the VRA