908 F.3d 1175
9th Cir.2018Background
- Los Angeles conducted 2012 redistricting via a Charter-created Redistricting Commission and City Council; process involved public hearings and multiple proposal rounds.
- Commissioner Christopher Ellison (appointed by Council President Wesson) proposed a CD 10 map explicitly aimed at increasing African American voter percentages; his map was forwarded from a West/Southwest ad hoc committee.
- The Commission and City Council revised Ellison’s proposal through public comment, amendments, and Legislative Analyst review; final CD 10 increased African American CVAP modestly (from 36.8% to 40.5%) while adding significant portions of Koreatown.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging racial predominance in drawing CD 10 and sought depositions of key officials; district court granted summary judgment for the City and entered a protective order barring depositions.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue that race predominated the final map, and legislative privilege protects state/local legislators from compelled testimony absent extraordinary justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether race was the predominant factor in drawing CD 10 (Equal Protection) | Wesson and Ellison drove a race-based plan to make CD 10 a majority African American district; ad hoc committee structure and appointments facilitated race‑based sorting | Multiple stages of review, public input, Commission and Council amendments, traditional redistricting principles and compactness show race did not predominate | Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show genuine dispute that race predominated in the final enacted boundaries |
| Whether Chamber statements and appointment of Ellison create direct evidence of racial predominance | Wesson’s public comments and Ellison’s emails/maps show intent to prioritize race | The subjective motivations of individuals do not prove that race subordinated other considerations in the final multi-step process | Held evidence of individual intent insufficient absent proof race controlled final decisions |
| Whether procedural irregularities (committee process, map selection, commissioner turnover) support inference of racial predominance | Ad hoc committees and selection of Ellison’s map suppressed scrutiny and enabled race‑based outcomes | The procedure mirrored prior cycles, public participation occurred throughout, and turnover was common—record lacks link to racial motives | Held irregularities do not create triable issue on predominance |
| Whether legislative privilege bars depositions of local officials (including Wesson, Ellison) | Plaintiffs: privilege shouldn’t shield decision‑maker testimony in constitutional claims implicating intent | City: legislative privilege applies to state/local legislators and is qualified; testimony is presumptively protected absent extraordinary need | Held: legislative privilege applies to state/local legislators; district court did not err in denying depositions because plaintiffs did not show sufficient need to overcome the privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (race predominance test and strict scrutiny framework)
- Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788 (focus on actual considerations that provided the essential basis for lines)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (race predominance requires subordinating traditional factors to race)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (court cautions against intrusive inquiries into legislative motive; testimony often barred)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (historical foundation for legislative privilege/immunity)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (protecting legislative time and independence from subpoenas)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (presumption of good faith of legislative actions and burden on challenger)