Speaker Kirk Cox appeals redistricting case to U.S. Supreme Court

US Supreme Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 4, 2018

Contact: Parker Slaybaugh
(804) 731-4976

Speaker Kirk Cox formally appeals redistricting case to United States Supreme Court

Virginia House of Delegates Speaker Kirk Cox on Tuesday filed a formal appeal to the United States Supreme Court in his capacity as Intervenor-Defendant in Bethune Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, after the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reversed its previous opinion and found 11 House districts unconstitutional.

The Jurisdictional Statement presents six questions to the Supreme Court for review, argues that the Court committed clear legal error, argues that race was not the predominant factor in the drawing of the 11 challenged districts, and argues that the challenged districts are narrowly tailored under the Voting Rights Act and are therefore constitutional. A full copy of the appeal can be found here.

“While we are naturally disappointed the Court denied our request for a stay, we will continue to pursue all legal remedies available to uphold the Constitutional redistricting plan adopted in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, including the House Legislative Black Caucus and then-Senator Northam,” said Speaker Cox. “The Eastern District of Virginia has once upheld the plan and once overturned it, the second time committing clear legal errors that the Supreme Court should review. A bevy of redistricting laws and court cases have created untenable conflict that demands clear guidance from the Supreme Court. Our appeal seeks both to overturn the district court’s legal errors and establish clarity in this difficult and confusing area of law.

Key Excerpts
“In 2011, the Virginia General Assembly passed a districting plan for its House of Delegates districts that garnered overwhelming bipartisan support including from all but two members of the House Black Caucus. Like all Virginia House plans since 1991, the 2011 plan contained 12 majority-black districts.”

“[T]he district court did not apply [a] holistic standard. It looked at only some lines, ignored others, weighed only race-related evidence, ignored all other evidence, and did not use “demanding” scrutiny, Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 241 (2001) (quotations omitted), to distinguish run-of-the-mill VRA compliance from suspect racial sorting. The court’s errors infected its analysis of each Challenged District.”

“The district court committed clear error in weighing the evidence. It is implausible that every House fact witness was dishonest, that every House expert used bad methodology, that race predominated in every Challenged District, and that no Challenged District needed to be above 55% BVAP under VRA §5—and, at the same time, that every fact witness for Plaintiffs was honest and accurate, every expert witness for Plaintiffs used reliable methodology, and every factual inference was in their favor. In other words, the district court spurned a “holistic” analysis weighing the “race-neutral explanations for specific district lines” it conceded exist, J.S.App.82, considered only racial explanations, and transparently attempted to shield its one-sided conclusions from review by labeling them findings of fact and credibility. That is paradigmatic clear error.”

“That was not a choice to deny equal protection over a choice to afford it. Nor was it a choice to wade into an area of suspect classifications over a choice to avoid them altogether. Rather, faced with the federal-law imperative to preserve minority representation— against a presumption of retrogression—the House made a legitimate “political decision” regarding the “effective exercise of the franchise” as to which there may be “an infinite number” of alternatives. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 898, 900 (1994) (Thomas, J., concurring). This case is about coopting the federal courts to reverse that informed political decision and hand a political victory to the small minority of delegates who had differing political goals.”

# # #

Share This Article:

Newsletter Signup

Sign up to be the first to receive news and events from Fairfax GOP!
Electing Republicans At Every Level

Headquarters

PAID FOR BY FAIRFAX COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
Powered by VOTEGTR

2024 U.S. Senate & Congressional Primary

GOP Primary Election Day is Tuesday, June 18

Election Calendar

  • Early voting opens 5/3
  • 5/28 – Deadline to register to vote (otherwise, same-day registration with provisional ballot)
  • 6/7 – Deadline to apply for an absentee ballot​
  • 6/8 - One of two Saturdays open for early voting, and additional early voting locations open.
  • Early Voting ends 6/15
  • 6/18 – Election Day

We need you on our team in '24.

Get active in the effort to take back Fairfax County from the progressives hellbent on raising taxes, coddling criminals, and socializing public schools.
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
Step
6
Step
First things first. Are you receiving info about local GOP events and elections?

No problem. We can fix that right now.

Thanks. We won’t overload your inbox, but we will keep you in the loop on important Fairfax GOP info and events.

Do you want to recieve news of events via text msg?
By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive recurring calls and SMS/MMS campaign and donation messages, including autodialed and automated calls and texts to that number from the Fairfax County Republican Committee. Msg & data rates may apply. You agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Text HELP for help and STOP to stop. Msg & data rates may apply.

The Fairfax GOP is recruiting new members who agree we need to draw a line in the sand and take our county back from the progressives.

Would you consider joining the Fairfax GOP as a voting member so you can have your say on committee business, candidates, and policy resolutions?*
No thanks. Take me back to the Fairfax GOP home page.