Voting Rights and Democracy

Supreme Court Reinforces Equality Principles In Drawing Election Districts

Washington, DC – On news today that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans issued the following reaction: 

Today’s opinion unanimously reverses the district court for applying a crabbed test for racial gerrymandering and requires further review of 11 challenged districts. This is an important reminder that courts must carefully review state district lines to ensure consistency with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for all persons. States cannot use racial quotas to draw district lines and hope to escape constitutional scrutiny. If the district court follows the principles laid out in today’s opinion, it should strike down the 11 districts as a violation of equal protection.

#

Resources:

CAC’s “friend of the court” brief in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/bethune-hill-et-al-v-virginia-state-board-elections-et-al-us-sup-ct 

“Protecting the Ballot for All: How Federal Courts Have Vindicated the Constitution and Prevented Voter Suppression by the States in the Run Up To the 2016 Election,” CAC Issue Brief, David Gans, September 2016: http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Protecting-the-Ballot-for-All.pdf 

“Voting Rights Back at the Supreme Court: The Big Racial Gerrymandering Cases You Haven’t Heard Of,” David H. Gans, December 1, 2016 https://www.theusconstitution.org/text-history/4054/voting-rights-back-supreme-court 

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

###

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New York v. Trump

In New York v. Trump, the First Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral and categorical decision to freeze all federal funding to programs that do not align with its policy priorities violates federal...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump

In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to dismantle the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), including by suspending all USRAP funding, violates federal law and the...
Rule of Law
March 13, 2025

March 2025 Newsletter: Ongoing Challenges and New Victories

Rule of Law
March 7, 2025

TV (Bloomberg): Could Trump Saying Musk Heads DOGE Create Legal Issue?

Bloomberg TV
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Catholic Charities Fort Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Catholic Charities Forth Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding appropriated for...