It appears to be the end of the line for a legal challenge to racial gerrymandering in Central Arkansas. For the second time since May 2023, a federal court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional maps, which were redrawn after the 2020 Census to split Pulaski County between three congressional districts (out of four total statewide). The new congressional map dilutes Black voting power in Pulaski, the state’s most populous county.
The outcome, while disappointing, was not particularly surprising. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal three-judge panel’s previous dismissal of this case and returned it to the panel. The Supreme Court gave the judges instructions to apply a new test, as set out in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, for determining whether apparent racial gerrymandering violated the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately for the Arkansas plaintiffs, this new test imposed a higher bar than the one the plaintiffs had already failed to clear.
Under the new test, it is no longer sufficient to show “a plausible inference that race was the ‘predominant factor’ behind the adoption of” the new congressional map. According to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Alexander opinion, “A plaintiff pressing a vote-dilution claim cannot prevail simply by showing that race played a predominant role in the districting process, but rather must show that the State enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.” A plaintiff bringing such a claim, Alito said, “must show that the State’s redistricting plan ‘has the purpose and effect’ of diluting the minority vote.”
In other words, under Alito’s test, it’s no longer sufficient to show that race was the “predominant factor” in a state adopting a specific map. Instead, a plaintiff has to make an affirmative showing that the purpose of the map was to dilute the voting power of racial minorities and that the map did so.
In yesterday’s order of dismissal, the three-judge panel in the Eastern District of Arkansas wrote:
Having carefully reviewed Alexander, the parties’ arguments, and the amended complaint, we have not changed our minds. Our previous orders identified the lack of allegations “strong enough to overcome the presumption of legislative good faith” and rule out “pure ‘partisan gerrymandering’” as fatal flaws in the plaintiffs’ claims. They still are, as Alexander itself makes clear. See Alexander, 144 S. Ct. at 1233 (explaining that a redistricting challenge must rebut the “presumption that the legislature acted in good faith” and “disentangle race and politics”). We accordingly DENY the plaintiffs’ request for a status conference and REINSTATE the judgment of dismissal.
The reference to ruling out “pure partisan gerrymandering” in the order is a nod to the fact that, while racial gerrymandering is technically impermissible, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering is outside the scope of court review.
The suit, originally filed in 2022, challenged a map drawn by a state panel after the 2020 Census that split Pulaski County between three congressional districts. The plaintiffs — six Black Arkansans, including State Sen. Linda Chesterfield (D-Little Rock) and State Rep. Denise Ennett (D-Little Rock) — filed suit against the state of Arkansas, then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Sec. of State John Thurston. Both men were sued in their official capacities only.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66e3eb8613134f8a9d53b070cb73b8b6&url=https%3A%2F%2Farktimes.com%2Farkansas-blog%2F2024%2F09%2F12%2Ffederal-court-again-dismisses-suit-challenging-arkansass-racially-gerrymandered-congressional-districts&c=16517464812916821884&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-09-12 05:34:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
