Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, three-judge district court · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRacial GerrymanderingVoting Rights ActRedistrictingEqual Protection Clauseracial gerrymanderingracial sorting

Facts

After the 2010 census, Virginia redrew House of Delegates districts while subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Delegate Chris Jones and other legislators used a 55% black voting-age population figure in structuring the twelve challenged majority-minority districts and in assessing whether the plan would satisfy the VRA and obtain DOJ preclearance. Plaintiffs argued that twelve districts were racial gerrymanders, but the court found that only House District 75 showed race as the predominant factor in its creation. The court further found that the legislature had good reasons to believe preserving District 75 at about 55% BVAP was necessary to avoid retrogression and comply with federal antidiscrimination law.

Issue

Whether Virginia's 2011 House redistricting plan used race as the predominant factor in drawing the twelve challenged districts, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and if so whether any such use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

Rule

To prove a racial sorting claim, plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a district by proving that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles and other nonracial districting criteria to racial considerations. Use of a racial BVAP floor is significant evidence of predominance, but not per se proof; predominance requires actual manifestation of racial subordination in the enacted district. If race predominates, the district survives only if the State had a strong basis in evidence to believe its use of race was reasonably necessary for actual compliance with federal antidiscrimination law, and the use of race was narrowly tailored to that compelling interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After the census, the legislature in Ohio redraws a majority-minority district in Cleveland. Committee leaders instruct map drawers to keep the district at at least 55% Black voting-age population, but the enacted map remains compact, contiguous by land, follows ward lines, and the few changes are convincingly explained by avoiding incumbent pairing and equalizing population.

Voters in the district sue, arguing that the 55% floor alone proves race predominated. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority rejected a per se rule that use of a BVAP floor automatically establishes predominance. A plaintiff must prove by a preponderance that race was the predominant factor in placing a significant number of voters in or out of the district by showing actual subordination of traditional neutral districting principles or other nonracial criteria in the enacted map. A racial floor is significant evidence, but not dispositive by itself. (Derived from Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (n.d.).)