636 F.Supp.3d 951
E.D. Ark.2022Background
- After the 2020 census Arkansas’s General Assembly adopted a new congressional map that shifted about 23,000 Pulaski County residents into the 1st and 4th Districts and added Cleburne County residents to the 2nd District.
- Black voters from southern and eastern Pulaski County allege the map "cracks" their community and dilutes Black voting strength, discouraging participation.
- Plaintiffs brought federal constitutional claims (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment vote-dilution, Article I §2, First Amendment, Privileges or Immunities), a §2 Voting Rights Act claim, and state-law claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); at the hearing plaintiffs conceded they cannot satisfy the first Gingles factor for a §2 claim (no majority-minority district is possible given Arkansas demographics).
- The court dismissed several constitutional claims with prejudice, found sovereign immunity barred suit against the State (and the Governor under Ex parte Young due to lack of enforcement connection), and gave plaintiffs 30 days to attempt to replead remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges race was the predominant motive for the map (14th/15th Amendment vote-dilution) | Map "cracks" Black Pulaski community; rejected alternative maps and officials' comments show discriminatory intent | Map adopted to equalize population, preserve county boundaries, and for partisan reasons; no direct evidence of racial intent | Dismissed for failure to plead discriminatory purpose plausibly; leave to replead on these claims |
| Whether Article I, §2 independently prohibits racial gerrymandering | Article I §2 governs election of Representatives and should bar racial gerrymanders | §2 addresses apportionment/one-person-one-vote (population math), not racial gerrymandering; Rucho forecloses analogous novel structural claims | Dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law |
| Whether the redistricting causes a First Amendment chilling effect | Moving voters chills political speech/association of Black voters | Plan imposes no speech/association restrictions and is neither vague nor overbroad; no First Amendment chill | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis to challenge the map | Clause protects voting/equality claims | Supreme Court narrowly construed the clause (Slaughter-House); it does not provide such a remedy | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether plaintiffs may state a §2 VRA vote-dilution claim (Gingles factors) | Totality of circumstances shows less opportunity to elect preferred candidates; Gingles satisfied by cohesion and white bloc voting | Plaintiffs conceded they cannot satisfy Gingles I (no majority-minority district available given statewide demographics) | Plaintiffs admitted first Gingles factor cannot be met; §2 claim fails as pleaded. Court deferred final ruling on remaining counts and allowed amendment, but the concession undermines viability |
| Whether the State and Governor are proper defendants (sovereign immunity / Ex parte Young) | Plaintiffs sue State and Governor for injunctive relief | State invokes sovereign immunity; Governor lacks special enforcement connection required by Ex parte Young | State dismissed on sovereign immunity; Governor Hutchinson dismissed (no sufficient enforcement connection); Secretary of State identified as the proper election official |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (one-person, one-vote basis for congressional apportionment)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (Gingles preconditions for §2 vote-dilution claims)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (definition and context of "cracking" and coalition districts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard; allegations must raise claim above speculation)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (partisan gerrymandering political-question limits; discussion of one-person, one-vote as mathematical)
- Perkins v. City of West Helena, 675 F.2d 201 (8th Cir. recognizing Fifteenth Amendment vote-dilution claim historically)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (narrow exception to state sovereign immunity for injunctive relief against officials)
- Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (abrogation of sovereign immunity requires unmistakably clear congressional intent)
- Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321 (clarifying §2 analysis under totality of circumstances)