The Independent View: Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

The Supreme Court will hear Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (Docket: 18-281) on March 18th, 2019, Racial, a Gerrymandering Challenge to Virginia State Legislative Districts.

Issues:

(1) Whether the District Court conducted a Proper “holistic” Analysis of the Majority-Minority Virginia House of Delegates Districts under the Prior Decision in this Case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, even though it Ignored a Host of Evidence, including the overwhelming Majority of District Lines, which were carried over Unchanged from the prior Map; the Geographic Location of Population Disparities, which imposed Severe Redistricting constraints and directly impacted which Voters were Moved Into and Out of the Majority-Minority Districts; and the Degree of Constraint the House’s Voting Rights Act Compliance Goals imposed in Implementation, which was Minimal.

(2) Whether the Bethune-Hill “predominance” Test is satisfied merely by a Lengthy Description of ordinary Voting Rights Act Compliance Measures.

(3) Whether the District Court erred in relying on Expert Analysis it previously Rejected as Unreliable and Irrelevant and Expert Analysis that lacked any Objective or Coherent Methodology.

(4) Whether the District Court committed clear Error in Ignoring the entirety of the House’s Evidentiary Presentation under the guise of Credibility Determinations Unsupported by the Record and Predicated on Expert Testimony that should Not have been Credited or even Admitted.

(5) Whether Virginia’s choice to draw 11 “safe” Majority-Minority Districts of around or above 55% Black Voting-Age Population (“BVAP”) was narrowly Tailored in light of the Discretion the Voting Rights Act afforded Covered Jurisdictions to “choose to create a certain number of ‘safe’ districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice,” under Georgia v. Ashcroft, or the Requirement the Voting Rights Act, as Amended, imposed on Covered Jurisdictions “to prove the absence of racially polarized voting” to justify BVAP Reductions towards or below 50% BVAP.

(6) Whether the District Court erred in Ignoring the District-Specific Evidence before the House in 2011 justifying Safe Districts at or above 55% BVAP.

(7) Whether Appellants have Standing to bring this Appeal.