U.S. judge picks new WA legislative map, moving Latino district

The decision was left to Judge Robert Lasnik after the state, and Secretary of State Steven Hobbs, were sued after the Washington State Redistricting Commission completed its work, with plaintiffs saying the original map did not comply with federal voting-rights law. 

Under the new map, known as Remedial Map 3B, the Latino-majority district unites Latino communities from East Yakima in Yakima County to Pasco in Franklin County. The Latino district was also switched from the 15th Legislative District to the 14th to ensure that state Senate elections will fall on a presidential year when Latino voter turnout is generally higher. 

In August, Lasnik ruled that the 15th Legislative District in Central Washington, drawn by the Washington State Redistricting Commission in 2021, diluted voting power for Latinos in the region, siding with the plaintiffs in Palmer v. Hobbs.

In his court order, submitted Friday, Lasnik noted that while the percentage of Latino voters in the redrawn 14th Legislative District was lower than the Latino-majority district in the map drawn by the commission, the new map was configured in a way that Latino voters could better elect their candidate of choice.

Lasnik also felt the map preserved as much of the Yakama Nation Reservation and its off-site lands and fishing villages as possible within one district, the 14th. Lasnik noted that it was not realistic to include all the Yakama lands without overpopulating the 14th Legislative District. That would violate the redistricting principle of keeping districts as equal in population as possible, and perpetuate the vote dilution that was a key issue in the original lawsuit. 

The plaintiffs submitted five maps late last year. Remedial Map 3 was revised once to minimize its impact on incumbent legislators in neighboring districts, then revised again—to what is now Remedial Map 3B—in response to Lasnik’s requests during a hearing last week. 

The Legislature’s Democratic majority declined to reconvene the bipartisan redistricting commission despite objections from Republican leaders, leaving the court to oversee the process. 

In concluding his ruling, Lasnik acknowledged that this job does not fall within the “[U.S. District] Court’s normal duties,” but said he felt confident that the process resulted in a map that remediated the voting-rights violation, thanks in part to the assistance of Karin Mac Donald, a redistricting expert picked by the court as special master. He also credited the extensive process, which included testimony from experts for both the plaintiffs and conservative Latinos who intervened in the case. 

Intervenors in the case were allowed to submit an alternative map and voice several concerns, including claims that too many residents were relocated, too many neighboring districts were impacted, and Democrats would gain a greater advantage in getting their candidates elected in regions historically safe for Republicans. 

Lasnik, in his order, said while it was a downside that the new map led to changes to 13 neighboring legislative districts, the move was necessary to unite Latino communities and resolve the voting-rights violation of the original map drawn by the commission. Lasnik also noted that the shifts in different districts’ populations were a “normal redistricting occurrence.”

As to the concerns regarding partisanship, Lasnik said in his order that even with the changes in the adopted map, ultimately, the map does not “meaningfully shift the partisan balance of the State” and “was not drawn (or adopted) purposely to favor one political party over the other.”