Wash­ing­ton’s state lev­el Vot­ing Rights Act has eas­i­ly sur­vived a chal­lenge to its con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty, with a unan­i­mous Supreme Court rul­ing this week that the land­mark law is “valid and con­sti­tu­tion­al on its face.” The deci­sion is an impor­tant legal vic­to­ry for vot­ing jus­tice and ensures that the WVRA will remain in force.

The major­i­ty opin­ion, authored by Jus­tice Mary Yu, was signed by all of her col­leagues, except for Jus­tice G. Helen Whiten­er, who did not par­tic­i­pate. Mil­lie M. Judge filled in for Whiten­er as a Jus­tice Pro Tem and was a major­i­ty cosigner.

Yu’s opin­ion notes that the case reached the Court when James Gimenez, a Franklin Coun­ty vot­er, inter­vened in vot­ing jus­tice lit­i­ga­tion that arose in that East­ern Wash­ing­ton coun­ty and made the argu­ment that the WVRA was invalid. Gimenez did not pre­vail at the tri­al court lev­el, so he appealed.

The Court accept­ed Gimenez’s request to review the case, prob­a­bly because the jus­tices felt that hav­ing a defin­i­tive prece­dent with regards to the WVRA’s con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty would be a good thing for Wash­ing­ton. (Tri­al court rul­ings are not bind­ing prece­dents like state Supreme Court deci­sions are.)

“Gimenez’s argu­ments are all based on his view that the WVRA protects
some Wash­ing­ton vot­ers but excludes oth­ers,” wrote Jus­tice Yu.

“The WVRA’s pro­tec­tions apply to ‘a class of vot­ers who are mem­bers of a race, col­or, or lan­guage minor­i­ty group.’ […] Gimenez inter­prets this lan­guage to mean that the WVRA pro­tects only mem­bers of ‘race minor­i­ty groups,’ ‘col­or minor­i­ty groups,’ or ‘lan­guage minor­i­ty group[s].’”

“Gimenez also argues that the WVRA has been repealed by impli­ca­tion and is facial­ly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al because it requires local gov­ern­ments to imple­ment elec­toral sys­tems that favor pro­tect­ed vot­ers and dis­fa­vor oth­ers on the basis of race.”

“Gimenez’s argu­ments can­not suc­ceed because his read­ing of the statute is
incor­rect. The WVRA pro­tects all Wash­ing­ton vot­ers from dis­crim­i­na­tion on the basis of race, col­or, and lan­guage minor­i­ty group. 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.”

(By “plain­tiffs,” Yu is refer­ring to the par­ties who brought a Wash­ing­ton Vot­ing Rights Act case against Franklin Coun­ty and won — the action that Gimenez object­ed to and unsuc­cess­ful­ly sought to over­turn by intervening.)

Notably, the Supreme Court did more than just turn back Gimenez’s chal­lenge. It also grant­ed the plain­tiffs’ request for attor­ney fees and costs on appeal against Gimenez, which means Gimenez is on the hook for his oppo­nents’ legal costs as well as his own. He did­n’t even get so much as a dis­sent embrac­ing his argu­ments out of the Supreme Court. This is what a com­plete defeat looks like.

Also of note: Gimenez’s attor­ney is Joel Ard, one of Tim Eyman’s favorite lawyers, who Eyman has con­tin­ued to lav­ish praise on even after Ard quit rep­re­sent­ing Eyman in the main State of Wash­ing­ton v. Tim Eyman cam­paign finance enforce­ment case. Eyman has repeat­ed­ly char­ac­ter­ized Ard as a bril­liant and savvy legal mind. But it’s clear from the text of the deci­sion that the Supreme Court was thor­ough­ly unim­pressed with Ard’s arguments.

NPI con­grat­u­lates the UCLA Vot­ing Rights Project, Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, P.S.,
and Morfin Law Firm PLLC on the suc­cess­ful rep­re­sen­ta­tion they pro­vid­ed to the respon­dents. Kudos also to OneAm­er­i­ca, ACLU, Bren­nan, and all of the oth­er groups that filed ami­ci briefs in defense of the Wash­ing­ton Vot­ing Rights Act.

Read the full opin­ion below:

The case is Por­tu­gal v. Franklin Coun­ty, No. 21–2‑50210–4.