Introduction

Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Appellants v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. is a significant Supreme Court case decided on March 1, 2017. The case revolves around the constitutionality of Virginia's legislative districting plan, which aimed to ensure that each of the 12 new state legislative districts had a black voting-age population (BVAP) of at least 55%. The appellants, a group of voters, challenged the district lines, alleging that the plan constituted racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The respondents, including the Virginia State Legislature and the Virginia State Board of Elections, defended the plan, asserting that it complied with both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case clarifies the standards for determining when race predominates in redistricting plans and sets forth the criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of such plans under strict scrutiny.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which affirmed the District Court's judgment as to District 75 but vacated and remanded the decisions regarding the remaining 11 districts. The Supreme Court held that the District Court had employed an incorrect legal standard in determining racial predominance in these 11 districts. Specifically, the District Court required challengers to demonstrate an actual conflict between traditional redistricting principles and racial considerations, a requirement the Supreme Court found unnecessary.

Regarding District 75, the District Court found that race did predominate but concluded that the district lines were constitutionally permissible because they were narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, namely compliance with §5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court affirmed this part of the judgment, acknowledging that the legislature had a strong basis in evidence to justify the 55% BVAP threshold in District 75.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key Supreme Court cases that shape the legal landscape of racial gerrymandering:

• MILLER v. JOHNSON, 515 U.S. 900 (1995): Established that racial gerrymandering claims require proof that race was the predominant factor in redistricting decisions.
• SHAW v. RENO, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I): Recognized racial gerrymandering as a valid claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
• SHAW v. HUNT, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (Shaw II): Clarified that race can predominate even when traditional redistricting principles are respected.
• Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ___ (2015): Discussed the narrow tailoring requirement for race-based redistricting to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
• Page v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 58 F. Supp. 3d 533 (2014): A related case where Virginia's districting was struck down based on similar racial considerations.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court identified two primary errors in the District Court's approach:

• Incorrect Standard for Racial Predominance: The District Court required proof of an actual conflict between race and traditional redistricting principles. The Supreme Court clarified that such a conflict is not a prerequisite for establishing racial predominance. Instead, race can be shown to predominate through either circumstantial evidence (e.g., district shape and demographics) or direct evidence of legislative intent.
• Partial Consideration of Racial Motives: The District Court only considered racial motives in parts of district lines that deviated from traditional criteria. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a holistic analysis, assessing the district as a whole to determine if race was the predominant factor in its design.

For District 75, the Court found that the legislature had a compelling interest in complying with §5 of the Voting Rights Act and that the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve this goal. This was based on substantial evidence indicating that a 55% BVAP was necessary to maintain the ability of black voters to elect their preferred candidates.

Impact

The decision in Golden Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections has significant implications for future cases involving racial gerrymandering:

• Broadening the Evidence for Racial Predominance: By removing the necessity to demonstrate a conflict with traditional redistricting principles, the Court allows plaintiffs more avenues to establish racial predominance.
• Emphasis on Holistic Analysis: Courts must now evaluate the district boundaries as a whole rather than focusing solely on areas that deviate from traditional criteria.
• Guidance for Legislatures: State legislatures are reminded to ensure that their use of race in redistricting is both compelling and narrowly tailored, particularly when complying with the Voting Rights Act.
• Judicial Scrutiny: The decision reinforces strict scrutiny as the standard for assessing racial gerrymandering, ensuring that any racial considerations in districting are subject to intense judicial examination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Racial Gerrymandering

Racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to increase or decrease the political power of a particular racial group. This can undermine the principles of equal representation and lead to discriminatory outcomes.

Racial Predominance

Racial predominance occurs when race is the dominant factor influencing the drawing of district lines. Establishing racial predominance is crucial for determining whether a redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review. Under this standard, the government must show that a challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In cases of racial gerrymandering, strict scrutiny ensures that any use of race in redistricting is justified and minimal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Golden Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections significantly refines the legal framework for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims. By clarifying that demonstrating an actual conflict with traditional redistricting principles is not necessary to establish racial predominance, the Court broadens the scope for plaintiffs to challenge discriminatory districting plans. Additionally, the emphasis on a holistic analysis ensures that the entire district is considered in assessing racial motives, thereby enhancing the fairness and integrity of electoral districting processes. This decision reaffirms the importance of strict scrutiny in cases of racial classifications and provides clearer guidance for both litigants and legislators in addressing issues of race in redistricting.