Latino Voters in Yakima Valley Secure Key Voting Rights Act Victory

Seattle, WA — Today, Latino voters in Washington state’s Yakima Valley successfully defended their right to have an equal voice in state legislative elections. In the case, Soto Palmer v. Hobbs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a district court's 2023 ruling that Washington’s 15th Legislative District was enacted in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and affirmed that the new, fair district put in place to address the violation was a proper remedy. This decision keeps in place the lower court's ruling and preserves a fair voting district for Latino voters in the Yakima Valley area. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside co-counsel MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the UCLA Voting Rights Project, and attorney Edwardo Morfin of the Morfin Law Firm in Washington, has represented individual Latino voters challenging the state legislative district in the case since January 2022. 

After successfully proving at trial that the enacted legislative district violated Section 2 of the VRA by unlawfully “cracking” Latino voters in the Yakima Valley, the district court ordered that a new, lawful district be drawn. This new district gave Latino voters in the Yakima Valley area an equal voice in state legislative elections for the first time in decades in the 2024 election. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an effort by two individual voters and a state legislator — who had intervened in the case to defend the discriminatory district — to prevent the new, fair district from taking effect for the 2024 election. The intervenors subsequently appealed the district’s court’s rulings to the Ninth Circuit.   

Oral argument was held at the Ninth Circuit in March 2025, and today, the decision of the lower court was left in place because the Ninth Circuit found that the intervenors lack standing to appeal the court’s liability ruling, and affirmed that the new remedial district put in place to address the Section 2 violation complies with federal law. This ruling is a victory for Latino voters in the Yakima Valley because it keeps in place the district court’s ruling and the new, fair district. 

"For the first time in decades, Latino voters in Washington state’s Yakima Valley were able to have an equal voice in their state legislative elections because of the new remedial map,” said Annabelle Harless, director of redistricting litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling today allows Latino voters in the region to continue to elect state legislators who best serve their community. Despite challenges from bad actors attempting to revert back to a discriminatory map, Yakima Valley’s Latino voters persisted in their fight and successfully defended their right to fair representation.” 

"The Ninth Circuit correctly upheld the right to vote and free and fair elections in Washington,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Staff Attorney at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “We are proud to represent our clients who have fought for years to ensure that Latinos are given the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to the Washington legislature."

"The resistance Latino voters have faced in opposition to our efforts at improving fairness in elections for marginalized communities is appalling,” said Eddie Morfin of the Morfin Law Firm. “The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Latino voters in Yakima Valley, who have faced decades of discrimination, should have a say in who represents them. I will keep fighting for fairness every chance we get." 

“Today, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the historic decision that protects Yakima Valley Latino voters from dilutive redistricting,” said MALDEF Western Regional Counsel Ernest Herrera. “We are glad that the Ninth Circuit panel recognized that the intervenors’ appeal had no standing or merit.”

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of a separate but related case, Garcia v. Hobbs, as moot. CLC submitted an amicus brief in the Garcia case on behalf of the clients in Soto Palmer, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the case’s dismissal, because it is moot and was filed to impede success in Soto Palmer, and as part of a broader effort to attack the Voting Rights Act. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment in this case is therefore also a victory.

Keep up with the latest on this case here.