Racial Discrimination

Delegation and Deprivation: The Struggle Over Judicial Reallocation in Alabama

Election Law Society · January 18, 2023 ·

By Devin Carter

A fight for racial justice has erupted in Alabama. In July 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU-AL), alongside the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tiara Hudson, challenging the constitutionality of a decision by the Alabama Judicial Resources Allocation Commission (JRAC) to move a judgeship from the racially diverse Jefferson County to the majority-white Madison County. The JRAC’s vote to move the judgeship happened on the heels of Tiara Hudson’s victory in the Democratic primary election for the office. With no opponent in the general election, Hudson was slated to succeed Judge Clyde Jones to the bench. After Hudson’s primary victory, but before the general election, Judge Jones announced his immediate retirement, creating a vacancy in the seat that Hudson hoped to fill. But rather than fill the vacancy in Jefferson County, the JRAC decided to exercise powers delegated to it by the Alabama legislature to relocate the judgeship to Madison County, thus depriving Hudson of a judgeship and the people of Jefferson County of a judgeship position.

The JRAC’s vote to move the judgeship was split along racial lines, with white voters voting for the relocation and Black voters in opposition. Once the decision was made public, it was met with backlash, as members of the public expressed frustration that a county with a substantial Black population would lose a valuable resource to a majority-white county. The decision also received biting criticism from voting rights advocates, who similarly decried the relocation for depriving the citizens of Jefferson County of fair representation in the judiciary. Hudson released a statement declaring that the rights of people of color to serve their communities must be protected and explained that the sorts of barriers that have been erected to prevent her, and others, from doing so must be eliminated.

Hudson’s words stretch beyond the facts of her own dispute and are applicable to much of the state’s historical voter suppression tactics: the now-unconstitutional Jim Crow-era literacy tests and poll taxes, as well as current controversies such as the state’s voter ID requirement, felony disenfranchisement, and a lack of early voting. These laws have had a disproportionately negative impact on the ability of minority voters to have their political voices heard. This controversy surrounding the transfer of the judgeship could be viewed as a continuation of efforts to dilute the political power of minority voters. Bolstering this view is the fact that, despite the JRAC having possessed the authority to reallocate judgeships since its inception in 2017, it had not exercised this power until now, which stripped a racially mixed jurisdiction of a judgeship shortly before a Black woman was due to fill the seat. In response to these allegations, the JRAC has argued that Jefferson County had an excess of judges, and that the transfer would provide Madison County with a judgeship that it needed.

Hudson’s complaint argued that the power to reallocate vacant judgeships was an unconstitutional delegation of authority from Alabama’s legislature to the commission, and that the governor’s subsequent appointment of a new judge in Madison County was, therefore, unconstitutional. Despite Hudson’s efforts, as well as those of the ACLU-AL and SPLC, an Alabama judge dismissed the case in August 2022. The judge justified the dismissal by claiming that Hudson lacked the standing to sue; the judge further determined that the Alabama legislature had properly delegated its authority when it gave the JRAC the power to reallocate vacant judgeships. Hudson, the ACLU-AL, and SLPC have filed a notice of appeal. ACLU-AL’s legal director, Tish Gotell Faulks, explained that she was seeking clarification regarding the way that judicial resources would be distributed across each of the state’s jurisdictions so that every person in Alabama had access to judges and other legal resources.

Discrimination in Washington State Redistricting

Election Law Society · December 5, 2022 ·

By Megan Bodenhamer

Washington State has rather progressive and cutting-edge voting and election laws. For example, Washington State was one of the pioneers for statewide mail-in voting, long before the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, voter turnout in the state is consistently above the national average. Washington State also has one of the nation’s few bi-partisan redistricting committees. However, despite these policies—that, on the surface, may seem modern and equitable—there are problems plaguing Washington State’s elections that are far from idyllic. Specifically, Washington State has faced many allegations of voting discrimination against its Latino population.

On January 19th of this year, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging intentional discrimination against Latino voters by the Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Redistricting Commission. The UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Campaign Legal Center, and residents of Yakima (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) filed the lawsuit against the Washington State Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate. The Plaintiffs allegethat “[t]he Washington State Redistricting Commission . . . selected redistricting plans for Washington’s state legislative districts that dilute Hispanic and/or Latino voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice.” The allegations arise out of Yakima, Franklin, Adams, and Grant counties. The lawsuit alleges that the Washington State Redistricting Commission intentionally “cracked” these Latino populations and mixed them with a heavily white population, thus diluting their votes. Lines were drawn through the City of Yakima cutting across the areas where Latino populations live, while still including blocs of white voters that often vote against Latino-preferred candidates. Further exacerbating the problem, Latino voters in the included area have a low turnout rate, while those excluded have a higher rate. This case has not yet been tried, but it will certainly be a pivotal decision for the longevity of the newly created districts in Washington.

Gerrymandering is not the only place where Latino voters in Washington State face challenges. Due to its long-time mail-in voting system, Washington State employs a signature matching system to deter voter fraud. Unfortunately, in high-Hispanic counties, Latinos were four times more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected for signature issues. As a result of these signature denial disparities, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Latino Community Fund of Washington have filed suit against Benton, Chelan, and Yakima counties for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. The lawsuit claims that the signature-matching policies are flawed because they are subject to the discretion of local election workers and have inconsistent results over time, harming Latino voters in Washington State.

However, there has also been successful litigation in Washington to defend Latino rights. In 2022, the UCLA Voting Rights Project settled a claim against Franklin County under the Washington Voting Rights Act, a recently passed state provision. Franklin County admitted fault in the settlement, conceding that they were in violation of the Act. Franklin County previously had an at-large voting system where a Latino-preferred candidate had never won. Under the settlement, Franklin County Commissioner elections will be required to use single-member districts beginning in 2024. While this may be a win for Latino voters in Franklin County, there is much work to be done in other counties, across the state of Washington, and across the United States.

Wisconsin: After Frank v. Walker

Election Law Society · April 20, 2016 ·

Wisconsin: after Frank v. Walker, a new case — One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol — was filed on May 29^th, 2015 to challenge Wisconsin’s election laws again.

By: Lisa Zhang

In a recent complaint filed by One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, and six Wisconsin residents, plaintiffs challenged several Wisconsin voting provisions, including 2011 Wisconsin Act 23. I previously discussed the Equal Protection challenges made in this case in an earlier post. Below is an analysis of the case’s challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The Crossroads of America v. The Lone Star State: Comparison of Indiana and Texas ID Laws

Election Law Society · February 19, 2016 ·

By: Katie Teeters

Voter ID laws are spreading across the country leaving controversies in their wakes. Advocates believe requiring ID is a good way to prevent in-person voter fraud and increase public confidence in the election process, while opponents say that voter ID laws unduly burden the right to vote. Still, a total of 36 states have passed laws requiring a showing of some form of identification in order to vote. This blog post will take a look at voter ID laws and their respective implications in Texas and Indiana.