The First Circuit has decided Metts v.Murphy. The case was a challenge by African-American residents of Rhode Ilsland to a the state senate redistricting plan under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs “allege that although African-Americans did not constitute a numerical majority in any state senate district before redistricting, they have historically had the ability to elect a representative of their choice with the help of crossover votes in one of the former districts. They claim that as a result of the redistricting plan, this opportunity has been adversely affected (indeed, eliminated) by the reduction of the African-American percentage in the relevant district. After the districts were redrawn, their candidate of choice, at that time an incumbent, lost his seat in the Democratic Party primary. Because of the makeup of the newly configured district, the victor in the primary was effectively assured of being the victor in the general election.”
The district court had dismissed the claim on grounds that African Americans were not large enough to form a majority in a district, and therefore that the Section 2 claim failed. Drawing a distinction between “influence districts” and “crossover districts,” a 2-1 majority of the First Circuit reversed. According to the majority, “[m]ost often, influence districts have been defined as ones ‘in which a minority group has enough political heft to exert significant influence on the choice of candidate though not enough to determine that choice.'” The majority defined a crossover district as one “in which a minority group constituting less than fifty percent of the electorate can elect a candidate of its choice with the help of crossover votes from voters in the majority group.” Holding that the Supreme Court has left over the question whether the denial of crossover districts can constitute a section 2 violation, the majority said that it could.
The dissent disagreed: “In short, I do not believe that section 2 of the VRA authorizes vote dilution claims that are wholly dependent upon massive crossover voting. There is a critical distinction between minority-preferred candidates who lose because redistricting excludes too much of the minority electorate from a particular district (illegal vote dilution) and minority-preferred candidates who lose because they do not attract enough votes from other folks within the district (legal majoritarian rule). The amended complaint, even when taken at face value, blurs this distinction.”
This case is sure to spark interesting commentary on how far section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does, and should, go.