OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz



Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

Case Information

Date Filed: December 22, 2014
State: Virginia
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case 3:14-cv-00852); Supreme Court of The United States (Case 15-680)


Whether Virginia's 2012 congressional redistricting plan constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering


District Court Opinion issued 10/22/15. Appellants' brief filed 9/7/16. Appellees' brief filed 10/17/16. Appellants' Reply filed 11/16/16. Supreme Court opinion issued 3/1/17. Motion for Attorney Fees filed 7/10/18. Because the Supreme Court has shown an interest in clarifying the test and because this Court’s determinations cut against the Supreme Court’s concern that an analysis be “holistic,” id. at 799, there is a likelihood that Intervenors’ appeal will be heard on the merits and will succeed; Motion to Stay filed 7/25/18. Order and Proceed with Remedial Phases Granted filed 9/14/18. Redistricting plans put forward filed 11/2/18. Report of Special Master filed 12/7/18. Supreme Court appendix filed 12/28/18. Addendum to Special Report filed 12/28/18 and 1/8/19. Motion to Amend Report is denied filed 1/8/19. The special master and the plaintiffs have advised the Court that the Second Report of the Special Master contains errors regarding the compactness scores of certain districts in Peninsula Module 2. Accordingly, the special master is hereby ORDERED to submit a corrected final report filed 2/4/19. The plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses is premature given the case in appeal to the Supreme Court and thus the motion is denied 3/26/19. ORDER. Pursuant to the Court's order entered on October 18, 2018], the Commonwealth of Virginia is directed to render payment in the amount of $126,363.71. Filed 4/5/19. SCOTUS opinion dismissing appeal filed 6/17/19. District Court Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 8/2/19. Opposition To Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 8/30/19. Reply in Support of Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 9/6/19. Defendant-Intervenor Motion to Strike or for Leave to File Responsive Brief 9/6/19. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Intervenors' Motion to Strike or Leave 9/9/19. Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Second Motion For Attorney's Fees and Litigation Expenses 9/25/20. Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Clarification 4/20/20. Supplemental Motion For Attorney Fees 5/8/20. Response to Supplemental Motion For Attorney Fees 5/22/20. 


District Court Documents


Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test

Edward B. Foley

A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

This is why US election ballots routinely go missing

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in USA Today about the prevalence of missing election ballots.


"Most of the time, it just goes unreported because it doesn't affect the result," Tokaji said. 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Finds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims to be Non-Justiciable Political Questions

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The opinion resolved disputes originating in North Carolina and Maryland, in the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

more info & analysis...