OLYMPIA, Wash. (CN) — The Washington Supreme Court denied a challenge of the state’s Voting Rights Act on Thursday, upholding a settlement between Latino voters and Franklin County that created single-member district systems instead of “at large” ones.
The appeal filed by Franklin County voter James Gimenez sought to upend a settlement reached in May 2022 after three Latino voters sued Franklin County and its board of commissioners for diluting the votes of Latino voters.
According to the 2021 lawsuit, the county’s hybrid voting system has denied Latino voters the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in general elections for the last 20 years.
“There are no Latino preferred candidates currently serving on the Franklin County Board of Commissioners,” the plaintiffs wrote. “There has never been a Latino elected to serve on the Franklin Board of Commissioners.”
Until the settlement, the county’s governing body consisted of three commissioners each representing a geographic district. Through its hybrid voting system, the county used a district-based model for primary elections and an at-large system for general elections.
“Candidates who win a majority of the vote in high-density Latino voting precincts receive very low support in high-density white precincts,” the plaintiffs wrote, adding that, by splitting the Latino voting population between three districts, the election scheme dilutes the voting power of the Latino community centered in and around the city of Pasco, Washington.
It also violates the Washington Voting Rights Act, they argued, which passed the state’s Legislature in 2018 to ensure “minority groups have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of an election.”
Justice Mary Yu rejected Gimenez’s appeal to the state’s high court on Thursday, explaining that his arguments are informed by an incorrect interpretation of the act’s definition of a “protected class,” claiming that it protects some racial groups while excluding others.
“The WVRA protects all Washington voters from discrimination on the basis of race, color and language minority group,” Yu wrote. “On its face, the WVRA does not require race-based favoritism in local electoral systems, nor does it trigger strict scrutiny by granting special privileges, abridging voting rights or otherwise classifying voters on the basis of race. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs have standing and that the WVRA is valid and constitutional on its face.”
The opinion affirms the Franklin County trial court’s decision to dismiss Gimenez’s claims as an intervenor and orders him to pay attorney fees for the UCLA Voting Rights Project. It also changes how the county’s commissioners are elected in 2024, ensuring that all voters can elect candidates of choice through district-based elections who will represent their interests within county organizations and local governments.
“Today’s ruling is a big win for voting rights in Washington State and beyond,” said Yurij Rudensky, senior counsel at the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, in a statement. “At a moment when those rights are under sustained assault nationwide, the court has affirmed that state law and state courts can protect against discrimination in elections.”
Rudensky added how the U.S. Supreme Court’s “steady weakening of the federal Voting Rights Act” in recent years put the responsibility on states to protect voting rights. Had Washington’s Supreme Court gone the other way, he said, it would have had significant implications for states considering their own voting rights, including California, Oregon, New York and New Jersey.
“This ruling sends a clear message: states have a crucial role in protecting voters from discrimination, and they are well within their constitutional rights to do so,” Rudensky said.
Follow @alannamayhampdx
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
