Personhuballah v. Alcorn
155 F. Supp. 3d 552
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiffs challenged Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District as a racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause; the district court (Page I/II) twice found the Enacted Plan unconstitutional for race predominance.
- The Virginia General Assembly failed to enact a remedial plan by the court’s deadline; the court appointed Dr. Bernard Grofman as special master to propose remedial maps.
- Dr. Grofman submitted remedial proposals; the court selected his Congressional Plan Modification 16 (“Plan 16”) as the remedial map for the 2016 cycle.
- Intervenor-Defendants (incumbent Republican members) appealed the liability judgment to the Supreme Court and moved to suspend remedial proceedings and stay implementation pending that review.
- The district court denied the stay, finding it retained jurisdiction over remedies, the Intervenors had not shown a strong likelihood of success or irreparable injury outweighing harms to voters and the Commonwealth, and immediate remedial relief better protected constitutional voting rights and administrative interests.
- The court adopted Plan 16 because it: achieves near-perfect population equality; remedies the Shaw violation by prioritizing traditional districting principles (compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions) over race; preserves incumbents’ districts where possible; and is consistent with Section 2 and Section 5 considerations as equitable factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may proceed with remedial redistricting while the Supreme Court reviews liability | Plaintiffs: court may and should implement relief to cure constitutional violation and protect voters’ rights | Intervenors: appeal of liability divests district court of power to order remedy or at least warrants a stay pending Supreme Court review | Court: retained jurisdiction over remedial phase and denied stay; remedial implementation should proceed now |
| Whether Intervenors met stay factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest) | Plaintiffs: stay would cause irreparable harm to voters and administrative disruption; public interest favors remedy now | Intervenors: will suffer irreparable campaign injury and confusion running under two possible maps; likelihood of success substantial | Court: Intervenors failed to show strong likelihood of success or irreparable injury outweighing harm to plaintiffs/public; stay denied |
| Standard and remedy for racial gerrymandering (Shaw/Alabama guidance) | Plaintiffs: Enacted Plan subordinated traditional criteria to race (55% BVAP), so strict scrutiny applies and plan fails; remedy must restore neutral criteria | Defendants/Intervenors: contend remedial plans should preserve BVAP levels and legislative policies (including partisan balance) | Court: applied Shaw and Alabama—race predominance invalidated Enacted Plan; adopted Plan 16, drawn by neutral principles, producing lower BVAP but preserving minority ability to elect and avoiding race predominance |
| Role of Voting Rights Act (Sections 2 and 5) in remedial drawing | Plaintiffs: remedy should ensure minority voters retain ability to elect preferred candidates; consider §2/§5 effects | Intervenors: caution about relying on §2/§5 where not litigated | Court: considered §5/§2 as equitable/federal-law guides; Plan 16 meets §5-focused ability-to-elect standard and appears §2-compliant in relevant districts |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (requirement of approximate population equality in congressional districts)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (legislative reapportionment is primarily a legislative function; courts act when legislature fails)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (race predominance triggers strict scrutiny; traditional districting principles must not be subordinated to race)
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (Section 5 and race‐predominance guidance)
- Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (court-ordered remedial plans must respect legislative policies where possible and consider VRA)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (population-equality and compactness considerations)
- White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (courts act when legislature fails to reapportion in timely fashion)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (stay-pending-appeal factors)