Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections
58 F. Supp. 3d 533
E.D. Va.2014Background
- Virginia redrew its U.S. congressional districts after the 2010 census to balance population and protect minority voting strength under the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- The 2012 Plan for Virginia’s Third Congressional District increased BVAP to 56.3% and was cleared by DOJ before Shelby County; post-Shelby, Section 5 preclearance is not required for Virginia going forward.
- Plaintiffs allege the 2012 Plan was a racial gerrymander, violating Equal Protection, with race as the predominant factor rather than traditional districting criteria.
- The district’s shape is irregular and includes water contiguity and wide locality splits, supporting claims of racial predominance alongside incumbency and political considerations.
- The court held race predominated, strict scrutiny applied, and the plan failed narrow tailoring; citizens should be remediated in the next legislative session (no election delay).
- The remedy requires new districts drawn in Virginia’s next legislative session by April 1, 2015; imminent 2014 elections proceed under the challenged plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was race the predominant factor in drawing CD-3? | Plaintiffs contend race predominated. | Defendants claim incumbency and other factors predominate. | Yes; race predominated. |
| Was the 2012 Plan narrowly tailored to Section 5 compliance? | Plan failed to narrowly tailor to avoid retrogression. | Plan tailored to avoid retrogression and comply with VRA. | No; not narrowly tailored. |
| What remedial relief is appropriate? | Delay elections and craft interim plan. | Allow elections under current plan; remedy later. | Remedy via new plan in next session; proceed 2014 elections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (strict scrutiny when race is used as a proxy for political objectives)
- Shaw v. Reno (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (race predominance requires strong corroboration beyond locality shape)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (demanding burden to show race predominated; strict scrutiny applied when shown)
- Easley v. Cromartie (Cromartie II), 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (race predominance shown via circumstantial evidence; strict scrutiny tractable)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (equity considerations in redistricting cases when elections imminent)