A legal challenge to the state's congressional redistricting map is a much-needed pushback to district lines that undermine Black voting strength in one of the state's most populous counties, according to Democrats in Arkansas.
The lawsuit, which names Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Secretary of State John Thurston and the state of Arkansas as defendants, accuses the state of diluting the Black vote in Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District through a gerrymandering method known as "cracking." The tactic is used to disperse voters of similar interests among populations with which they hold little in common.
The legal action comes amid a national debate over voting rights this year. Congressional redistricting maps have been the subject of litigation in many states nationwide, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
In the Arkansas suit, the plaintiffs said the new 2nd Congressional District boundaries removed a large bloc of southern and eastern Pulaski County, populated primarily by Black residents, and divided that bloc between the state's 1st and 4th Congressional Districts.
To equalize the population between the 2nd District and other districts, the plaintiffs said, lawmakers included the overwhelmingly white population of Cleburne County in the district.
State Sen. Joyce Elliott, a Little Rock Democrat, said a common through line during the run-up to approving the new U.S. House map was that the process was not about race, which she said is refuted by the resulting new map.
"When you remove African Americans only predominately and then connect Cleburne County, you almost have to be relieved of your thinking ability to not understand what they were doing," she said. "I refuse to cede my thinking ability to make someone else feel better about doing something that is purely racist. ... It's like you're pouring water on my head and telling me this is not about pouring water on my head. That's how absurd it was."
Elliott was one of several legislators -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to propose maps that were drawn without splitting counties. But, in the end, she said, the favored map was the one that split Pulaski County three ways by carving out a large block of Black voters and substituting them with a large block of white voters.
"The Republicans deliberately and surgically targeted Pulaski County," she said. "They saw Pulaski County as having a more robust district when it came to participation of African Americans. The intent was for the 2nd District to be diluted and to not have the opportunity to elect a Democrat ever in the 2nd District."
Elliott, who is Black, challenged incumbent Congressman French Hill, who is white, for the 2nd District seat in 2020, pulling in 148,410 votes, or 44.6%, to Hill's 184,093, or 55.4%, out of 332,503 votes cast, a difference of 35,683 votes, or 10.8%.
Democratic State Rep. Linda Chesterfield of Little Rock, who is a party to the lawsuit, agreed and did not mince words about her feelings regarding the redistricting process.
"From the beginning it was deliberate," Chesterfield said. "They were going to break up Pulaski County to make sure that never again would there be the ability for any Democrat -- especially a minority -- to run successfully for a seat in the U.S. Congress. That's what this is about. Sen. Elliott came close and suddenly over 20,000 people are split up, not into two districts, but into three."
Republican Party of Arkansas Chairwoman Jonelle Fulmer, in a statement, said the party thinks the state Legislature "took great consideration for the minority voice in creating this map."
"In fact, Pulaski County now has greater representation with three of Arkansas' four congressmen," she said in the statement. "We trust that our lawmakers acted with great care and integrity in ensuring that every Arkansan is represented fairly in the federal Congress, and we believe the Courts will agree."
While the Democratic Party of Arkansas is not a party in the suit, its chairman, Grant Tennille, said he fully supports the effort.
And, Debrah Mitchell, president of the Arkansas Democratic Black Caucus, an auxiliary group of the state party that works to have African American candidates elected or appointed to local, state and federal offices, called Arkansas' redistricting map part of a broader effort nationwide to suppress the Black vote.
There are Black-majority counties in Arkansas, but Pulaski County is home to the most powerful block of Black voters in the state due to its population size, Mitchell said.
State Sen. Clarke Tucker, a Democrat who also lost to Hill in the 2018 race for the 2nd Congressional District, said they now have to rely on the judicial branch to prevent the gerrymander of Pulaski County.
In 2018, which was a midterm election, out of 253,453 votes cast in the 2nd District race, Tucker, who is white, received 45.8% (116,135 votes ) to Hill's 52.1% (132,125 votes). Joe Swafford, a Libertarian candidate in that race, received 5,193 votes, or 2%.
NEW MAP SOUGHT
The plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit accuse the state of violating the U.S. Constitution, the Arkansas Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting Black voting power and influence through the newly drawn map.
When the redistricting bills were presented to Arkansas' governor after their passage in October, Hutchinson didn't sign them, saying he had serious concerns about the impact of the redistricting plan on minority voters. However, Hutchinson also declined to veto the bills -- which is a largely symbolic act in Arkansas as it only takes a simple majority to override a governor's veto -- allowing the law to take effect without his signature.
The lawsuit, filed by Little Rock attorney Richard Mays on behalf of the plaintiffs, asks the federal court to order the General Assembly to draw up new House districts that do not dilute the Black voting strength in the 2nd District or for the court to devise or select another plan that keeps Black voting strength intact.
The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. The plaintiffs are asking that a three-judge panel be put into place to hear the lawsuit. According to the federal court website the complaint was filed March 7, which is the only document filing to date. No hearing has been scheduled in the matter to date.
Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, who is running for reelection in the state's 1st Congressional District, said his focus is on doing his job.
Crawford said he is doing "Everything I can to get the message out to the people" that he will be serving.
The Republican said he was glad that most of his district was left intact through the redistricting process and hopes a judge tosses the lawsuit.
Crawford also rejected criticisms that the congressional lines were racially motivated by Republicans.
Running for reelection in the 4th Congressional District is U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman. A spokesperson for his campaign declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Hill, a Little Rock Republican who is running for reelection, said in a statement that he does not have a say in how the 2nd District is drawn.
"That is the responsibility of the Arkansas legislature. I will represent whatever district that the state legislators decide on," he said in the statement.
Legislation enacting the map was introduced in the General Assembly last year, sponsored by state Sen. Jane English, R-North Little Rock, in the Senate and by state Rep. Nelda Speaks, R-Mountain Home, in the House.
Reached by phone Wednesday, Speaks was asked why she initially proposed a map that didn't split counties but proposed a later map with the three-way split that carved out a significant number of Black voters to split between two districts while replacing those voters with a county composed almost entirely of rural white voters.
"We're in a lawsuit right now," Speaks said. "I'm not answering any questions."
English did not return numerous messages left requesting comment on the matter.
Chesterfield said she asked English about the split.
"She said 'what would you rather do, lose Maumelle?'" Chesterfield said. "I would rather not have given up anything because we could have been made whole."
Chesterfield said that during legislative debates over the redistricting maps neither Speaks nor English were able to answer questions directed toward them about how their maps came about. That, she said, was a strong indicator to her that neither had actually had a hand in creating the maps.
"They were shills, that's all, just shills," she said. "It's just insulting. Why would someone from Pulaski County advocate for breaking up their own damned county? It makes no sense."
Chesterfield said that for her, the big source of frustration remains that splitting the county didn't have to happen.
"We could have done so much better. It didn't have to be my map. There were a number of maps that would have kept the counties whole," she said.
Elliott said the General Assembly had numerous maps -- proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike -- that met federal redistricting requirements without splitting Pulaski County apart.
She said she has believed since the three-way split of Pulaski County was approved that one of the main drivers of that split was evidence that the 2nd District was becoming a less comfortable berth for Republicans.
Hill is a four-term incumbent and is seeking a fifth term in this year's election.
BITTER CAMPAIGN
When Elliott ran against Hill in 2020, the campaign was marked by rancor with a number of ads seeking to paint Elliott as a radical activist and militant liberal. Elliott said she had always had what she believed to be a good relationship with Hill and said she was shocked by the campaign vitriol.
"I know French Hill and we have disagreements but I have never thought of him as being racist," Elliott said. "I don't know what to say whether he is now or not but he allowed for a racist campaign. You can't keep doing that and make it but if you can change the system, well, I think the system has been changed to favor Republicans."
Hill said in a statement that voters spoke with "a clear, resounding voice."
"I ran a campaign based on the clear differences in our voting records and let the voters decide who they wanted to represent them in Washington," he said in the statement.
On Friday, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge called the lawsuit "groundless" according to spokesperson Amanda Priest.
"The congressional maps were finalized in October 2021," Rutledge said in a text message from her office earlier in the week. "The plaintiffs then waiting five months -- until after the candidate filing period closed -- to file the lawsuit. That shows it's a blatant political stunt and not a genuine effort to address legitimate concerns."
Mays said nothing could be further from the truth.
"That's their standard response to most litigation they don't agree with," he said. "This is not a political stunt. It has nothing to do with politics other than they are trying to deprive a group of minority citizens the opportunity to vote as a collective."
Chesterfield said the timing of the lawsuit is no reflection on the seriousness of the matter.
"It doesn't matter what [Rutledge] says," she said. "We've been planning this for some time and it's always the right time to do the right thing."-