Abbott v. Perez - 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018)

Rule:

The allocation of the burden of proof in challenging districting legislation and the presumption of legislative good faith are not changed by a finding of past discrimination. Past discrimination cannot, in the manner of original sin, condemn governmental action that is not itself unlawful. The ultimate question remains whether a discriminatory intent has been proved in a given case. The historical background of a legislative enactment is one evidentiary source relevant to the question of intent. But the U.S. Supreme Court has never suggested that past discrimination flips the evidentiary burden on its head.

Facts:

In 2011, the Texas Legislature adopted a new congressional districting plan and new districting maps for the two houses of the State Legislature to account for population growth revealed in the 2010 census. Several plaintiff groups filed challenges in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing that some of the districts in the new plans were racial gerrymanders, some were based on intentional vote dilution, and some had the effect of depriving minorities of the equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. The case was assigned to a three-judge court (hereinafter, the “Texas Court”), as required by 28 U. S. C. §2284(a). In order to implement its plans, Texas had to obtain preclearance. To do this, Texas filed for a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the District of Columbia (hereinafter, the “D.C. Court”). By early 2012, the D.C. Court had not yet issued a decision, and Texas needed usable plans for its rapidly approaching primaries. Accordingly, the Texas Court drew up interim plans for that purpose. In creating those plans, the majority of the Texas Court thought that it was not required to give any deference to the Legislature’s enacted plan. Instead, it based its plans on what it called neutral principles that advanced the interests of the collective public good. Texas challenged those court-ordered plans before the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded with instructions for the Texas Court to start with the Texas Legislature's 2011 plans but to make adjustments as required by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (hereinafter, “VRA”). The Texas Court then adopted new interim plans. After the D. C. Court denied preclearance of the 2011 plans, Texas used the Texas Court's interim plans for the 2012 elections. In 2013, the Legislature repealed the 2011 plans and enacted the Texas Court's plans. Texas conducted its 2014 and 2016 elections under the 2013 plans. In 2017, the Texas Court found defects in several of the districts in the 2011 federal congressional and State House plans. Subsequently, the Texas Court also invalidated multiple Congressional (CD) and House (HD) Districts in the 2013 plans, holding that the Legislature failed to cure the “taint” of discriminatory intent allegedly harbored by the 2011 Legislature.

Issue:

Did the Texas Court err in concluding that the 2011 plans were tainted by discriminatory intent and that the Legislature had not cured that taint?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the Texas Court erred in requiring the State to show that the Legislature purged the taint attributed to a prior plan. According to the Court, if a challenger claimed that a state law was enacted with discriminatory intent, the burden of proof lay with the challenger, not the State. Moreover, the Court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the Legislature acted with discriminatory intent, particularly as there was no evidence that the Legislature's aim was to approve plans it knew were unlawful.