Backus v. South Carolina
857 F. Supp. 2d 553
D.S.C.2012Background
- This case concerns redistricting plans for South Carolina House, Senate, and Congress adopted in 2011, challenged under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and §2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering and vote-dilution theories as to both the House and Congressional plans.
- The Benchmark plan and prior Colleton County decision guide current review; DOJs preclearance was obtained under §5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- The court conducted a trial without a jury in March 2012, relying on affidavits, deposition testimony, and exhibits.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the court eventually entered judgment for Defendants after evaluating traditional race-neutral principles and the plaintiffs’ evidence.
- The Senate plan (Act 71/Senate plan) was dismissed by stipulation; the plurality of Justices’ opinion guides the controlling result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the House and Congressional plans violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection | Plaintiffs contend race predominates in drawing lines | Defendants argue traditional race-neutral principles were not subordinated to race | Race not shown to be predominant; EP claim fails |
| Whether §2 of the Voting Rights Act is violated by the plans | §2 violation due to impaired minority electoral opportunities | No proof minority could form majority districts or intentional discrimination | No §2 violation under Bartlett and Hall |
| Whether the plans violate Fourteenth Amendment as vote-dilution | Plans dilute minority voting strength | No discriminatory intent or effect shown | Vote-dilution claim rejected under Fourteenth Amendment |
| Whether the Fifteenth Amendment claims support a racial gerrymandering finding | Fifteenth Amendment prohibits race-based districting | No denial of the right to vote shown under Fifteenth Amendment | No Fifteenth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (U.S. 1995) (race as predominant factor triggers strict scrutiny in redistricting)
- Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (U.S. 1996) (race may be a factor but not predominant; strict scrutiny when predominant)
- Colleton County Council v. McConnell, 201 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D.S.C. 2002) (benchmark for traditional race-neutral principles in SC redistricting)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2001) (race cannot be sole or predominant consideration; must consider neutral criteria)
- Gingles (Bartlett v. Strickland), 556 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2009) (Gingles preconditions for §2: minority size, cohesion, bloc voting; crossover district focus)
- Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2000) (benchmarking for vote-dilution analyses; need reasonable alternative)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1960) (Fifteenth Amendment racially discriminatory districting)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2009) (discusses Gingles preconditions and when §2 relief is available; crossover district issue)