Summary
Navajo Nation v. San Juan County, 929 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019) — The Tenth Circuit affirmed that San Juan County’s county-commission and school-board election districts violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court held that District 3 of the county commission was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander subject to strict scrutiny, and the county failed to show a compelling interest or narrow tailoring; the 1984 consent decree did not bar the challenge because the Navajo Nation was not a party and the decree did not mandate specific district boundaries. The court also held that the school-board districts’ 38% population deviation violated the one-person, one-vote principle, as the county’s justifications—school-community philosophy, sparse population, and geography—were insufficient even under intermediate Anderson-Burdick scrutiny. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s rejection of the county’s race-predominant remedial plan and its adoption of a special master’s race-neutral remedial plan.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in denying the county's motion to dismiss based on the 1984 consent decree and settlement order.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the claim that county commission District 3 was unconstitutionally based on race.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the claim that the school board districts violated the one-person, one-vote principle.
- Whether the district court erred in rejecting the county's proposed remedial redistricting plan as predominantly based on race and failing strict scrutiny.
- Whether the district court erred in ordering the county to adopt the special master's remedial redistricting plan.
Holdings
- The district court correctly denied the motion because the Navajo Nation was not a party to the consent decree and the suit did not implicate the consent decree. The collateral-attack doctrine does not bar a non-party's suit, and the consent decree did not require specific district boundaries.
- The district court correctly granted summary judgment because the county's race-based districting failed strict scrutiny. The county's asserted compelling interest (compliance with the consent decree) was not supported, and even assuming VRA compliance is a compelling interest, the county lacked a strong basis in evidence for its race-based lines, thus failing narrow tailoring.
- The district court correctly granted summary judgment because the county's justifications for the 38% population deviation were insufficient under the Anderson-Burdick test. The school-community philosophy, geography, and sparse population did not justify the substantial deviation.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that the county's plan was predominantly based on race, and correctly concluded that the plan failed strict scrutiny because the county lacked a strong basis in evidence for its race-based lines.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that the special master's plan was not predominantly based on race, and did not abuse its discretion in adopting the plan. The plan was based on race-neutral principles and only adjusted for a potential § 2 problem at the end.
Key quotations
“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause 'limits racial gerrymanders in legislative districting plans.'” (4)
“The plaintiff’s burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.” (14)
“The one-person, one-vote principle prohibits states from restricting or diluting votes. The right to vote is infringed when legislators are elected from districts of substantially unequal population.” (18)
“The county’s primary goal, after adhering to the one-person, one-vote principle, was complying with § 2 of the VRA. But rather than rely on any particularized § 2 analysis, the county aimed for overall racial proportionality as a proxy for compliance with § 2 of the VRA.” (27)
Factual background
San Juan County, Utah, has a population that is approximately 52% Native American. The county commission was previously elected at-large, but after a 1983 lawsuit by the United States, the county entered a consent decree and adopted single-member districts. District 3 was heavily Native American. In 2011, the county redrew districts but kept District 3's boundaries, resulting in a district over 92% Native American. The school board districts had a population deviation of about 38%. The Navajo Nation sued, alleging that the county commission districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that the school board districts violated the one-person, one-vote principle.
Procedural history
The Navajo Nation sued San Juan County in 2012, challenging the county commission and school board districts. The district court denied the county's motion to dismiss based on the 1984 consent decree, granted summary judgment to the Navajo Nation on both Equal Protection claims, rejected the county's proposed remedial plan as unconstitutional, appointed a special master, and ordered the county to adopt the special master's plan and hold special elections. The county appealed.