Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2017)

Case Summary Notes: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2017)

Citation: 580 U.S. ___ (2017) | Argued: Dec. 5, 2016 | Decided: Mar. 1, 2017

Parties:

• Appellants: Golden Bethune-Hill et al., twelve Virginia voters

• Appellees: Virginia State Board of Elections et al.

I. BACKGROUND

• After the 2010 census, Virginia redrew 12 legislative districts for the House of Delegates.

• The legislature adopted a policy that each of the 12 districts should have a Black Voting-Age Population (BVAP) of at least 55%.

• Lawmakers claimed this BVAP target was necessary to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and avoid retrogression, which would reduce minority voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates.

• Plaintiffs alleged unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. DISTRICT COURT DECISION (3-Judge Panel)

• Held: Race was not the predominant factor in 11 of the 12 districts.

• Found: In District 75, race was predominant, but the use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest (VRA §5 compliance).

III. SUPREME COURT DECISION

• Majority Opinion by Kennedy (joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan):

A. Legal Standard Clarified

1. Error in Predominance Test

   • The District Court erred by requiring an "actual conflict" between race and traditional districting principles to find racial predominance.

   • The proper standard is a holistic inquiry into whether race predominated — even absent such a conflict.

   • A court must evaluate the district as a whole, not just specific segments that deviate from traditional criteria.

2. Remand of 11 Districts

   • Because of the legal error, the judgments for 11 districts were vacated and remanded.

B. Affirming District 75

• Race did predominate, triggering strict scrutiny.

• The Court assumed VRA §5 compliance was a compelling interest.

• Found narrow tailoring satisfied:

  • The legislature had good reasons to believe 55% BVAP was necessary.

  • Delegate Chris Jones used a functional analysis, including voter turnout, bloc voting, election history, and prison population demographics.

  • The use of the 55% floor was based on local evidence, not a mechanical application【52:6†Fraud.pdf】.

IV. DISSENTS

• Justice Thomas (concurring/dissenting):

  • Would apply strict scrutiny to all 12 districts because the state conceded it intentionally created majority-black districts.

  • Argued District 75 also failed strict scrutiny and that VRA §5 compliance is not a compelling interest【52:1†Fraud.pdf】.

• Justice Alito (concurring in part):

  • Agreed with majority on District 75, but also would have subjected all 12 districts to strict scrutiny【52:2†Fraud.pdf】.

V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

• Racial Predominance: Race predominates if it was the dominant motive behind district lines.

• Strict Scrutiny: When race predominates, state must show the map is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

• Section 5 of the VRA: Prevents retrogression — reducing minority voters' ability to elect preferred candidates.

• Functional Analysis Requirement: States must use practical evidence (e.g. turnout, election results), not just fixed racial percentages【52:5†Fraud.pdf】.

VI. IMPACT

• Rejected a rigid standard requiring conflict between race and traditional criteria.

• Emphasized holistic, districtwide review.

• Gave states some flexibility to use race when supported by good reasons under the VRA.

• Remanded 11 districts for re-evaluation under clarified standard.

VII. MEMORABLE QUOTES

• “The ultimate object of the inquiry… is the legislature’s predominant motive for the design of the district as a whole.”【52:0†Fraud.pdf】

• “The law cannot insist that a state legislature… determine precisely what percent minority population §5 demands.”【52:4†Fraud.pdf】

• “Race still may predominate even where a map looks consistent with traditional… principles.”【52:16†Fraud.pdf】