Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections Oral Argument
2016-12-13T18:16:27-05:00https://images.c-span.org/Files/5d7/20161213181727002_hd.jpgThe Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a racial gerrymandering case examining how race can be taken into consideration when states draw district maps. In 2011, Virginia lawmakers used the 2010 census to redraw 12 state legislative districts in which African Americans made up at least 55 percent of the eligible voters. Black voters sued, arguing that by packing minorities into these districts their vote was diminished in other parts of the state violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits the government from using race as a “predominant” factor in redistricting unless it serves a compelling state interest.
On March 1, 2017, the court ruled that a lower federal court used the wrong legal standard when it determined that race did not play too large a role in creating 11 of Virginia’s 12 legislative districts in dispute.
On March 1, 2017, the court ruled that a lower federal court used the wrong legal standard when it determined that race did not play too large a role in creating 11 of Virginia’s 12 legislative districts in dispute.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a racial gerrymandering case examining how race can be taken into… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, a racial gerrymandering case examining how race can be taken into consideration when states draw district maps. In 2011, Virginia lawmakers used the 2010 census to redraw 12 state legislative districts in which African Americans made up at least 55 percent of the eligible voters. Black voters sued, arguing that by packing minorities into these districts their vote was diminished in other parts of the state violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits the government from using race as a “predominant” factor in redistricting unless it serves a compelling state interest.
On March 1, 2017, the court ruled that a lower federal court used the wrong legal standard when it determined that race did not play too large a role in creating 11 of Virginia’s 12 legislative districts in dispute. close
People in this video
- Samuel A. Alito Jr. Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Stephen G. Breyer Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
Paul D. Clement Attorney -
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
- Elena Kagan Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Anthony M. Kennedy Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- John G. Roberts Jr. Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Sonia Sotomayor Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Clarence Thomas Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Hosting Organization
Related Video
-
McCrory v. Harris Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCrory v. Harris, a racial gerrymandering case concerning two North Carolina congressional…
-
Endrew F. v. Douglas City School District Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, which concerns the level of support public…
-
Hernandez v. Mesa Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hernandez v. Mesa, a case on whether constitutional protections can extend…
-
Gill v. Whitford Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Gill v. Whitford, a case involving redistricting in Wisconsin. A lower court in 2016…