SEATTLE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik on Thursday denied a motion by intervenor-defendants Jose Trevino and Alex Ybarra to vacate a Voting Rights Act remedial map, ruling they lack Article III standing to seek relief.
Lasnik, of the Western District of Washington, concluded that the intervenors could not establish a concrete, legally protectable interest in the legislative map that would allow them to invoke federal jurisdiction for post-judgment relief.
The intervenors sought to vacate the court’s August 2023 liability determination and March 2024 remedial order, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais challenged the prior rulings. They asked the court to reinstate the legislative map adopted by the Washington State Redistricting Commission following the 2020 Census.
Lasnik noted that the Ninth Circuit had already addressed the intervenors’ standing in a published decision issued August 27, 2025. The appellate court held that the intervenors lacked Article III standing to appeal the Section 2 liability determination and to challenge the remedial map under the Voting Rights Act.
Although the Ninth Circuit held that Intervenor Trevino had standing to pursue an equal protection challenge to the remedial map, it rejected that challenge on the merits, concluding that race was not the predominant factor in the court’s remedial map-drawing process.
Lasnik wrote that Rule 60(b) does not dispense with Article III requirements and that an intervenor’s prior participation in a case does not itself supply the required concrete stake. He emphasized that the relief the intervenors now seek — vacatur of the liability determination and reinstatement of the prior map — is not traceable to or redressable by Trevino’s specific racial-classification injury.
The intervenors’ pending petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court does not alter that conclusion, Lasnik wrote. The filing of a cert petition does not vacate or suspend the binding effect of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, which remains the law of the case.
Plaintiffs, a group of Latino voters from Washington’s Yakima Valley, alleged that the original district map diluted Latino voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The state did not enact a remedial map within the time allowed, prompting the court to adopt Remedial Map 3B.
Secretary of State Steven Hobbs opposed the motion, arguing that changing district lines less than three months before the August 2026 primary would jeopardize the election and cause voter confusion.
Lasnik denied the motion on standing grounds, avoiding the merits of the intervenors’ arguments under Rule 60(b)(5) or (6).
The intervenors’ certiorari petition remains pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.