Bethune-Hill v. Virgina State Board of Elections

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 race to conflict with traditional redistricting criteria to be predominant

Correct standard (according to SCOTUS)

Even if traditional criteria are met, race can still be a predominating factor

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

Final ruling impact

Encouraged more nuanced and justified redistricting practices