Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections
137 S. Ct. 788
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- After the 2010 census Virginia redrew 12 state House districts and used a 55% black voting‑age population (BVAP) target for each. All 12 enacted districts exceeded 55% BVAP.
- Twelve registered voters sued, alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Virginia House intervened to defend the plan.
- A three‑judge District Court upheld the plan for all 12 districts: it found race did not predominate in 11 districts (because it required an actual conflict between race and traditional criteria) and found District 75 narrowly tailored to comply with §5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court (Kennedy) held the District Court used an incorrect predominance standard for 11 districts, vacated those holdings and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard, but affirmed the judgment as to District 75.
- The Court reaffirmed Miller’s predominance test and the narrow‑tailoring standard as framed in prior precedents; it accepted that a state can have a compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act (for purposes of this case) and that a legislature needs a "strong basis in evidence" when using race to avoid retrogression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for racial predominance | Bethune‑Hill: challengers must show race was the predominant motive; District Court set too narrow a prerequisite (actual conflict) | State: predominance requires an actual conflict between race and traditional criteria; if map could be justified neutrally, no predominance | Court: District Court erred; no categorical requirement of an actual conflict; predominance may be shown by circumstantial or direct evidence and may exist even when traditional criteria are respected |
| Unit of analysis for predominance (portion vs. whole district) | Bethune‑Hill: court must assess legislature’s motive for the district as a whole (holistic analysis) | State/District Court: may confine inquiry to those portions that deviate from traditional criteria | Court: held analysis must be district‑wide; courts should not divorce portions of lines from the whole when assessing motive |
| Remand vs. merits determination for 11 districts | Bethune‑Hill: ask Court to find race predominated in the 11 districts | State: urge affirmance or merits resolution | Court: declined to resolve merits; remanded to District Court to apply correct standard in first instance |
| Narrow tailoring re District 75 (compliance with §5) | Bethune‑Hill: 55% BVAP target was not supported; insufficient functional analysis | State: had good reasons and performed a functional analysis (turnout, election returns, prison population, meetings) to believe 55% was needed to avoid §5 retrogression | Court: affirmed District Court — State had a “strong basis in evidence” and narrow tailoring satisfied for District 75 |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (establishes that a plaintiff must show race predominated in districting decisions and that traditional race‑neutral principles were subordinated)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (recognizes racial gerrymandering claim and notes legislature is always aware of race when drawing lines)
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (race may predominate even when plan respects traditional districting principles)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (plurality addressing majority‑minority districts and strict scrutiny in redistricting)
- Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999) (racial predominance and evidentiary standards in redistricting challenges)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (appellate review of district court factfinding in redistricting cases is for clear error)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (framework for strict scrutiny of race‑based government classifications)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (discussion of narrowly tailored racial classifications and strict scrutiny)
- Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U.S. 267 (1986) (emphasizes searching examination for race‑based preferences)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (concurrences discussing when intentional creation of majority‑minority districts triggers strict scrutiny)