Race in voting districts
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections
In brief
The Court let District 75 stand but sent the other 11 districts back because the lower court used the wrong test.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-0 · March 1, 2017 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Virginia voters challenged race’s role in 12 districts.
- Who it affects
- For the 11 districts, whether race predominated remains unresolved; the lower court must reconsider them under the correct legal standard.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court found the lower court used the wrong test for 11, wiped out that part of its ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded); it upheld District 75’s ruling under a close-fit test, assuming Voting Rights Act compliance was a compelling (especially important) government interest.
The case focused on whether race predominated in drawing 12 Virginia House of Delegates districts.
Question presented
1. Did the court below err in holding that race cannot predominate even where it is the most important consideration in drawing a given district unless the use of race results in "actual conflict" with traditional districting criteria? 2. Did the court below err by concluding that the admitted use of a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw twelve separate House of Delegates districts does not amount to racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny? 3. Did the court below err in disregarding the admitted use of race in drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence regarding the contours of the districts? 4. Did the court below err in holding that racial goals must negate all other districting criteria in order for race to predominate? 5. Did the court below err in concluding that the General Assembly's predominant use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest?
What the Court decided
Holding
1. The District Court employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of the 12 districts. 2. The District Court’s judgment regarding District 75 is consistent with the basic narrow tailoring analysis explained in Alabama. Where a challenger succeeds in establishing racial predominance, the burden shifts to the State to “demonstrate that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.” Miller, supra, at 920. Here, it is assumed that the State’s interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act was a compelling interest. 141 F. Supp. 3d 505, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
The Court's reasoning
The Court said that if race was the main factor in drawing a district, the state had to show the map closely fit an especially important government goal. For District 75, it assumed that complying with the Voting Rights Act was such a goal; for the other 11, it found the lower court used the wrong test without deciding whether race was the main factor.
The vote
From the opinions
“I would reverse the District Court as to all 12 districts.”
What's next
The lower court must reconsider the 11 districts under the correct legal standard. Its ruling for District 75 remains in place.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.