Two major challenges have arisen against the newly redrawn Washington state legislative district, LD-15. The bipartisan redistricting commission responsible for the redraw included LD-15, a semi-rural region located east of Yakima in their efforts. The district now comprises approximately 51.5% Hispanic voting-age population and was subject to two distinct legal challenges.
The first challenge, known as Trevino v. Palmer, argued on the grounds of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It contended that the redesigned district was lacking in Hispanic representation, thereby diluting the Latino community’s capacity to elect their preferred candidate. The Washington administration initially defended the legality of the district’s redrawn lines, however, later conceded they were invalid.
Simultaneously, a second lawsuit called Garcia v. Hobbs, contended that LD-15 was unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. Due to the constitutional nature of the challenge, oversight of the Garcia case was given to a special three-judge district court.
The Palmer case was overseen and decided upon by a different one-judge district court. Judge Robert Lasnik ruled that LD-15 diluted Hispanic voting rights and mandated a remedial map that would increase the district’s Hispanic voter population.
Controversially, the two district judges in charge of the Garcia case dismissed racial gerrymandering claims, arguing that the earlier Palmer injunction had blocked any path to relief. This decision was met with dissent from Judge Lawrence Van Dyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who argued that the case still held validity and that the state of Washington’s map indeed represented racial gerrymandering.
Both the Garcia and Palmer cases are now before the Supreme Court, raising numerous claims of error that will require thorough deliberation. Most importantly, the Court must determine whether the decision of a one-judge district court in a Section 2 dispute can nullify a three-judge court’s ability to weigh in on a constitutional claim concerning the same district.
The complexities of these cases are providing a cautionary tale for all legal professionals working in jurisdictions undergoing redistricting following the recent Census, underscoring the necessity for meticulous attention to detail in order to prevent a flurry of legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will provide crucial guidance on this issue to legislatures and redistricting commissions nationwide.