Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where a coalition of Black, Latino and Asian American plaintiffs established that the minority community has less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates under Virginia Beach’s at large method of election, it was deemed illegal and cannot be enforced in future elections.
Background
Plaintiffs filed suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or VRA, alleging that the City of Virginia Beach dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino and Asian American voters and therefore prevents minority voters from participating in the political process and electing representatives of their choice. The court held a six-day day bench trial beginning on Oct. 21, 2020.
Coalition
Both United States Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit have yet to rule on whether a coalition of protected minority groups may bring an aggregated Section 2 claim under the VRA. However, sister circuit courts have either assumed or explicitly held that Section 2 allows minority groups to bring claims as a coalition, although the Sixth Circuit has held otherwise. The court finds that racial coalitions, claiming voter dilution based on race, can bring a Section 2 claim because it is consistent with the language and purpose of the VRA as well as Supreme Court precedent.
Here, the plaintiffs have established the three preconditions for the minority community composed of Hispanic, Black and Asian voters. Plaintiffs showed that the minority community is sufficiently large and geographically compact, politically cohesive and that there is white bloc voting. The court also concludes that plaintiffs, at a minimum, established the preconditions for the African American community in Virginia Beach.
In Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994), the Supreme Court “held that evidence indicating that minority voters form voting majorities in a number of voting districts roughly proportional to their respective share of the appropriate population is relevant, though not dispositive, of whether minority voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice.” The court has discretion to examine this deferential fourth factor to the test.
Here, the court finds no evidence that minorities form effective voting majorities in various districts roughly proportional to the minority voters’ respective shares in the voting-age population. Rather, the evidence shows that under the current district lines, the minority community is prevented from forming effective voting majorities, even though they are politically cohesive. Accordingly, the court finds that the fourth factor is inapplicable in this case and that the city’s electoral system does not merit deferential treatment.
Merits
The court must now determine whether, “based on the totality of the circumstances, there has been a violation of Section 2.” The totality of circumstances inquiry typically involves nine factors: (1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the rights of the members of the minority group to register, to vote or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; (2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; (3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; (4) whether minority candidates have been denied access to any candidate-slating process; (5) the extent to which minorities in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; (6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals; (7) the extent to which minority group members have been elected to public office; (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of members of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.
The court finds that, based on the totality of the circumstance’s inquiry, plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of showing that the minority community has less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates. Critically, plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to show that each factor is met.
Accordingly it is declared that Virginia Beach’s at-large method of election is illegal and cannot be enforced in future elections. The court further grants plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Holloway v. City of Virginia Beach, Case No. 2:18-cv-69, March 31, 2021. EDVA at Norfolk (Jackson). VLW 021-3-164. 135 pp.
