June 7, 2025 Story by: Publisher
This article has been updated to include a joint statement from Arkansas civil rights attorney Arkie Byrd, O’Melveny & Myers, and the Legal Defense Fund.
A three-judge federal panel on Friday, June 6, dismissed a lawsuit challenging Arkansas’s congressional redistricting, ruling in favor of the state and concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of racial discrimination in the drawing of the 2nd Congressional District.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by a group of voters and the Christian Ministerial Alliance. It claimed boundaries for Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District were racially gerrymandered and diluted the votes of Black Arkansans.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), longstanding Arkansas civil rights attorney Arkie Byrd, and O’Melveny & Myers, issued the following joint statement:
“The decision is a disappointing result in a case that will have severe effects on the lives of Arkansans. Equal and fair representation should be a priority for every official in the state, yet here we see that fundamental promise of our democracy tossed to the wayside. But the moral arc of the universe remains long, and we will not stop our fight for fair maps, just representation, and the rights of Black voters in Arkansas.”
The plaintiffs include the Christian Ministerial Alliance and individual voters, Patricia Brewer, Carolyn Briggs, Lynette Brown, Mable Bynum, and Velma Smith.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit, filed by the Christian Ministerial Alliance and a group of voters, alleged that the 2021 redistricting plan diluted Black voting power by splitting Pulaski County—home to a significant Black population—among three congressional districts. Previously, Pulaski County was entirely within the 2nd Congressional District.
Previously, the entirety of Pulaski County was included in Arkansas’ Second Congressional District, which is represented by Republican U.S. Rep. French Hill. During the 2021 redistricting process, Pulaski County was split between three congressional districts.
Plaintiffs argued that this division, often referred to as “cracking,” was racially motivated and violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. They claimed the General Assembly considered racial data when redrawing district lines, leading to unconstitutional vote dilution.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The panel, comprising U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, U.S. District Judges D.P. Marshall Jr. and James Moody Jr., granted summary judgment to the state, stating there was not enough evidence to support the plaintiffs’ racial discrimination claims.
“Multiple Arkansas citizens challenge how the General Assembly redrew the state’s congressional district lines,” Friday’s order states. “Although their allegations were plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss [Docs. 35, 42], the evidence does not back up their claims of racial discrimination. For that reason, we grant summary judgment to Secretary of State John Thurston.”
Thurston, who was secretary of state when the lawsuit was filed in 2023, was elected state treasurer in 2024 during a special election. The governor appointed Cole Jester to succeed Thurston.
Previously, the entirety of Pulaski County was included in Arkansas’ Second Congressional District, which is represented by Republican U.S. Rep. French Hill. During the 2021 redistricting process, Pulaski County was split between three congressional districts.
“If it does not, then it just highlights how the pursuit of a nonracial aim — like retention, partisanship, or geography — could have led to an unintended racial disparity,” the panel wrote. “All three of the plaintiffs’ alternatives fall short in exactly this way.”
Citing a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a decision by a three-judge panel that found South Carolina had discriminated against Black voters in a 2023 redistricting lawsuit, Stras and his counterparts noted the high court emphasized that the courts must “start with the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.”
“Absent direct evidence of racial discrimination and with only weak circumstantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ case, the presumption of legislative good faith tips the balance,” Judge David Stras wrote.
Plaintiffs presented alternative district maps to demonstrate that the legislature could have achieved its goals without diluting Black voting strength.
However, the court found that these alternatives did not accomplish the General Assembly’s partisan objectives, such as political retention and geographic considerations. As a result, the judges concluded that the alternative maps failed to prove that race was the predominant factor in the redistricting process.
This decision marks the dismissal of the last of four lawsuits challenging Arkansas’s 2021 redistricting process. It underscores the challenges plaintiffs face in proving racial gerrymandering, particularly in jurisdictions where courts require clear evidence that race was the predominant factor in redistricting decisions.
The ruling may have broader implications for future redistricting challenges, especially in light of recent federal court decisions that have limited the avenues through which private individuals can enforce voting rights protections.
Source: Arkansas Advocate / Arkansas AG.gov / Reuters
