Washington State Asks Supreme Court to Apply Callais Precedent to Legislative Map
In a highly unusual legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into the state's internal legislative redistricting battle, asking the Court to apply the Louisiana v. Callais precedent to Washington's legislative map.
On June 2, 2026, Brown instructed the state to file a response to a pending Supreme Court petition (Trevino v. Ybarra / Soto Palmer). He requested that the Supreme Court accept the case, vacate the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment, and remand the case back to the 9th Circuit to determine whether the state's legislative map complies with Callais.
In early 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik approved a redrawn map for Washington's legislative districts to enhance the political voice of Latino voters in the Yakima Valley. The 9th Circuit subsequently upheld the map, concluding that race was not the predominant factor in its design. However, the Supreme Court's April 2026 Callais decision significantly curtailed the use of race in redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
While Attorney General Brown strongly criticized the Callais decision, he argued that as "honest brokers" representing the state, Washington must follow the law of the land:
“When we have a substantial change in the underlying case law that the original decisions were based on we think it’s important that the court follow the current standard and the current precedent... We’re asking them to take the case but we’re not asking the Supreme Court to decide the case. We have to make sure that the court here gets it right.”
He added that Callais is:
"...a horrible decision. It undermines the voting power of black and brown communities all across this country, including in Washington state. It really flies in the face of 40 years of precedent."
By formally requesting a remand, Brown seeks to ensure that Washington's legislative boundaries are legally sound under the Supreme Court's new, highly restrictive standards, mirroring the process the Supreme Court has already used in Alabama, North Dakota, and Mississippi.