This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-throws-out-virginia-congressional-map/2014/10/07/97fb866a-4e56-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court declares Virginia’s congressional map unconstitutional Court declares Virginia’s congressional map unconstitutional
(about 1 hour later)
A panel of federal judges has declared Virginia’s congressional map unconstitutional because it concentrates African American voters into a single district at the expense of their influence elsewhere. A panel of federal judges on Tuesday declared Virginia’s congressional map unconstitutional because it concentrates African American voters into a single district at the expense of their influence elsewhere.
The decision, handed down Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, orders the Virginia General Assembly to draw up new congressional maps by April 2015 — and prohibits the state from holding any House elections after 2014 until the new maps are implemented. The decision, handed down in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, orders the Virginia General Assembly to draw up new congressional maps by April 2015 — and prohibits the state from holding any House elections after 2014 until the new maps are implemented.
While the decision won’t affect this fall’s election, its impact will ripple across several districts in the state. And it represents another victory for Democratic plaintiffs hoping to break up black-majority districts, which they say unfairly concentrate African-American voters in one district but dilute their influence elsewhere. While the decision won’t affect this fall’s election, its impact could ripple across several districts in the state. It also represents a victory for Democratic plaintiffs hoping to break up black-majority districts, which they say unfairly concentrate African-American voters in one district but dilute their influence elsewhere.
“We’re obviously thrilled with the results,” said Marc Elias, a lawyer who represented three voters from the district where the unconstitutional redistricting took place. “The Republicans engaged in impressissble racial gerrymandering in a cynical effort to gain seats ... we look forward to the state doing a new redistricting to comply with the court’s orders.”
Judge Robert R. Payne wrote in a dissenting option that incumbent protection — rather than race — motivated the redistricting, a practice which is legal.
The case can still be appealed directly to the Supreme Court — an unusual legal quirk of the matter because it was decided by a three-judge panel — but whether and how that will happen remain unclear. Michael Kelly, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), said state lawyers were “reviewing the decision and assessing its impact and how best to move forward.” The attorney general’s office — in consultation with the board of elections — would decide whether to appeal, Kelly said.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a similar challenge to Alabama’s legislative reapportionment plan. In that case, the challengers said Republicans who control the state’s political leadership altered districts with a minority population that would already ensure the election of an African American to include even more black voters, raising the proportions to more than 70 percent.Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a similar challenge to Alabama’s legislative reapportionment plan. In that case, the challengers said Republicans who control the state’s political leadership altered districts with a minority population that would already ensure the election of an African American to include even more black voters, raising the proportions to more than 70 percent.
Both cases came on the heels of a 2013 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required “preclearance” in some states with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South. Both cases came on the heels of a 2013 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required some states with a history of discrimination not draw districts in such a way that created a “retrogression” in minorities’ ability to elect their preferred candidates. That generally meant not breaking up majority-black districts.
Although the Voting Rights Act — and preclearance — were meant in part to ensure elected representation for minorities, Democrats have agued in recent years that Republicans have used the act and its provisions to diminish black — and Democratic — influence outside of majority-minority districts. Although the Voting Rights Act was meant in part to ensure elected representation for minorities, Democrats have argued in recent years that Republicans have used the act and its provisions to justify diminishing black — and Democratic — influence outside of majority-minority districts.
The new voters added to majority-minority districts often came from districts where they might help elect a Democrat, the challenges say. In effect, it means virtually no districts are conducive to the election of a white Democrat, and the legislature’s blacks find themselves without partners to influence public policy, the challengers say.
That has created an unusual situation in which it is minority groups that are saying the state paid too much attention to race when drawing districts.
Such arguments have sometimes created tensions between minority groups and the Democrats they most often favor. Black incumbents especially want to make sure that districts remain safe for reelection, while other Democrats want minority voters more dispersed to increase the party’s chances of winning more races.Such arguments have sometimes created tensions between minority groups and the Democrats they most often favor. Black incumbents especially want to make sure that districts remain safe for reelection, while other Democrats want minority voters more dispersed to increase the party’s chances of winning more races.
The judges who decided the Virginia case mentioned the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights act in their opinion, but legal experts said it was largely irrelevant to what they ultimately found: that the state’s recent redistricting mape was unconstutional because race was the predominant factor in drawing the boundaries the 3rd District, and officials did not have a compelling reason for that to be the case.
Under the map, which was drawn in 2012, the district went from a voting-age population that was 53.1 percent African American to one that was 56.3 percent African American.
“In today’s case, the challenger said, ‘you’ve violated this rule against unconstutional racial gerrymanders, because you’ve ... you’ve packed in these African American voters into this 3rd Congressional District, and you didnt have a good reason to do so,’” said Richard Hasen, a University of California law professor who specializes in election law.
Jon Greenbaum, the chief counsel for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the judges looked in particular at how the map split cities and shaped the 3rd District, making it an “outlier” compared to others. He said the state will likely maintain an African American majority in the district if it is redrawn — as other portions of the Voting Rights indicate it should — but that majority will not be as sizeable.
“What we would hope Virginia would do would be to create a plan that maintained the distrcit as a black voting age majority district and cured the fault of this plan,” he said.
In Virginia, the political impacts of the decision remained unclear on Tuesday. A spokesman for Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) declined to comment. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), issued this statement: “Today’s ruling demonstrates the need to get partisan politics out of how Virginia draws its legislative boundaries.”In Virginia, the political impacts of the decision remained unclear on Tuesday. A spokesman for Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) declined to comment. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), issued this statement: “Today’s ruling demonstrates the need to get partisan politics out of how Virginia draws its legislative boundaries.”
The decision resulted from a court case brought last year by three voters from the district alleging that in the last round of redistricting, black voters were packed into Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District, a “racial gerrymander” in violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Under the map, which was drawn in 2012, the district went from a voting-age population that was 53.1 percent African American to one that was 56.3 percent African American. Lawmakers intentionally aimed for a black voting-age population of more than 55 percent, the court found, in order to have the map approved by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.
“The Supreme Court’s . . . decision significantly altered the status quo,” Judge Allyson K. Duncan wrote with one other judge on the three-judge panel concurring.
Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) currently represents the 3rd District and is running unopposed this fall. He first won election in 1992 — after Virginia, under a directive from the Justice Department, created a majority-black district stretching from Richmond to Hampton Roads.Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) currently represents the 3rd District and is running unopposed this fall. He first won election in 1992 — after Virginia, under a directive from the Justice Department, created a majority-black district stretching from Richmond to Hampton Roads.