Federal judge declines to toss WA legislative map

WASHINGTON - A federal judge rejected a new Republican challenge to Washington state's legislative districts - an appeal buoyed by the recent landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana.

State legislative boundaries were redrawn in 2024 after the same federal judge determined Latino voting power had been diluted in the Yakima Valley and Pasco areas. A group of Republicans, acting as intervenors," last week argued that the high court's Louisiana ruling rendered these districts illegal.

"After a bench trial, the court found that the challenged district boundaries, together with social, economic, and historical conditions in the Yakima Valley, resulted in unequal electoral opportunity for Latino voters," District Judge Robert Lasnik wrote Friday. "This court previously expressed substantial doubt that intervenors had a direct, concrete, and legally protectable interest in the challenged legislative map."

Following the Supreme Court's Louisiana ruling, the Republican intervenors had not shown evidence that undermines a key holding by the federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: "That race did not predominate in this court's remedial map-drawing process," Lasnik wrote in his order.

Now, advocates and critics of the state's legislative map will wait to see if the Supreme Court weighs in, after the high court's conservative majority in April significantly diminished the consideration of race while drawing districts.

The Washington state GOP pushed back on Lasnik's decision within days.

"Washington State has maintained a bipartisan redistricting commission for decades, avoiding the gerrymandering schemes many other states are currently struggling with," the state GOP said Monday on social media. "With the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais effectively prohibiting states from redrawing maps that use race as a criterion, a judge with any decency would have reverted legislative maps to their original boundaries."

The party accused Lasnik of being "partisan toward Democrats."

Meanwhile, state Democrats celebrated the judge's decision.

"Washington Democrats believe the court mandated lines of the 14th Legislative District comply with our state and federal constitutions and protect the votes of Latino communities in that region," the state Democratic Party said in a statement Tuesday.

"We are relieved the court did not inject chaos into our state's primary election like the Supreme Court of the United States chose to in its recent Callais decision which upended elections where ballots had already been cast," the party said.

In 2023, Lasnik ruled in Soto Palmer v. Hobbs that the previous map diluted the influence of Latinos' electoral power. The revised map created a Latino-majority 14th Legislative District, which some voting rights advocates hailed as reinforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A separate group of Latino voters backed by conservative groups appealed Lasnik's 2023 ruling to the Supreme Court before later challenging the revised map itself.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana, which the court's conservative majority said relied too heavily on race, renewed Washington state Republicans' challenge against the legislative map - following in the footsteps of a nationwide scramble to redraw congressional districts as Democrats and Republicans battle for control of the U.S. House.

This is a continuing harm that is inequitable now that the Supreme Court has confirmed the legal foundation for this court's redistricting orders was erroneous from the outset," the Republican intervenors wrote in a motion this month, urging Lasnik to toss the new map and revert to the prior boundaries drawn by the bipartisan redistricting commission in 2021.

Secretary of State Steve Hobbs requested that Lasnik avoid upending legislative districts ahead of the November midterm election. The plaintiffs in Soto Palmer also emphasized the sensitive timing in their response.

"This court should await action, if any, from the Supreme Court," they wrote.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.