Summary
The Ninth Circuit addressed appeals by intervenor-defendants challenging a district court’s Voting Rights Act Section 2 liability determination and remedial legislative map for Washington’s Yakima Valley. The court held that a single-judge district court had jurisdiction over the statutory challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and that most intervenors lacked standing to pursue their challenges. The court affirmed the rejection of the equal protection challenge to the remedial map and otherwise dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2284 requires a three-judge district court for a statutory Section 2 Voting Rights Act challenge to state legislative apportionment.
- Whether the intervenors had standing to appeal the district court's Section 2 liability determination concerning the enacted map.
- Whether the intervenors had standing to challenge the remedial map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Whether Trevino had standing to challenge the remedial map under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether the intervenors' Equal Protection Clause challenge was forfeited by failure to raise it adequately in the district court and, if so, whether the Ninth Circuit should exercise its discretion to consider it.
- Whether the remedial map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because race predominated in the district court's placement of voters.
Holdings
- Section 2284 does not require a three-judge district court for a statutory challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to state legislative apportionment. In the absence of a separate congressional directive, the statute requires a three-judge court for constitutional challenges to legislative apportionment, not statutory challenges.
- The intervenors lacked standing to appeal the district court's liability determination concerning the enacted map because their alleged injuries were not fairly traceable to that determination and were not redressable by the requested relief.
- No intervenor had standing to challenge the remedial map under Section 2 because the intervenors failed to adequately allege individualized vote dilution.
- Trevino had standing to challenge the remedial map under the Fourteenth Amendment because being moved from one legislative district to another allegedly on the basis of race is a cognizable individualized injury, and vacatur of the map could redress his ongoing representational harm.
- Although Trevino likely forfeited the Equal Protection Clause challenge by failing to raise it adequately in the district court, the Ninth Circuit exercised its discretion to consider the issue because dismissal without substantive review could result in injustice.
- The remedial map did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the intervenors failed to show that race was the predominant factor motivating the district court's placement of a significant number of voters within or outside a district.
Key quotations
“And, in the absence of such congressional guidance, a three-judge district court must be convened only for a constitutional challenge to legislative apportionment, whether state or federal.” (at 10)
“To demonstrate that a map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, Intervenors must prove that “race was the predominant factor motivating the [map drawer’s] decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.”” (at 23)
“The appeal of the liability order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal of the remedial order and judgment is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, except for Intervenors’ equal protection claims, as to which we affirm the district court.” (at 31)
Factual background
Following the 2020 Census, Washington's independent redistricting commission adopted a legislative map that divided the Latino community of interest in the Yakima Valley, particularly through the configuration of Legislative District 15. The district court found that the enacted map illegally cracked the geographically compact Latino community and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. When the commission declined to draw a remedial map, the district court imposed a map that placed Trevino in a different legislative district and incorporated Yakama Nation lands and other traditional redistricting considerations.
Procedural history
Latino voters sued Washington and its Secretary of State, alleging that the enacted Yakima Valley legislative map diluted Latino voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. After a bench trial, the district court found a Section 2 violation, enjoined the relevant portion of the enacted map, and, after the redistricting commission declined to draw a remedy, imposed its own remedial map. Three voters intervened and appealed; the State and original plaintiffs did not appeal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction, dismissed most claims for lack of standing, and affirmed the rejection of the surviving Equal Protection Clause challenge.