Whether a voter who is moved into a new district and a legislator whose district is reconfigured by a court-drawn remedial map have standing to challenge that map or the underlying determination of VRA Section 2 liability that caused the remedial map to be drawn

Respondents challenged Washington state legislative district 15 (“LD -15”), alleging it diluted Hispanic votes under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b) . Petitioners intervened to oppose the VRA claim and assert that LD-15 was a racial gerrymander. The district court ruled for Respondents, enjoined the Commission’s map, and adopted a new remedial map that reduced the Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population (“HCVAP”) in LD -15 from 52.6% to 50.2%. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioners lack standing to challenge the VRA ruling or assert their own Section 2 claim based on the remedial map’s dilution of Hispanic votes. It further held that one Petitioner had standing to challenge the remedial map as a racial gerrymander, but strict scrutiny was unnecessary because the remedial map was not “predominantly” base d on race, even if race may have been “a” motivating factor. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a voter who is moved into a new district and a legislator whose district is reconfigured by a courtdrawn remedial map have standing to challenge that map or the underlying determination of VRA Section 2 liability that caused the remedial map to be drawn. 2. Whether a map drawn to remedy racial vote dilution is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause when it is race conscious.