A civil rights law firm based out of Virginia has filed a lawsuit against Denver Public Schools, alleging Colorado’s largest school district redrew its five district seats with an “illegal racial intent” that violates the Fifteenth Amendment.

Filed in U.S. District Court by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Fifteenth Amendment under the Voting Rights Act.

“By DPS’ own admission — during the public hearing process — the school district lines were deliberately drawn to engineer racial outcomes in Districts 2 and 4,” the complaint alleges.

“DPS intentionally and brazenly drew district boundaries to ensure Black and Latino racial majorities achieved race-based representation over Denver’s increasing White population.”

The DPS Board of Education approved the map in use today after the 2020 Census to maintain a district where Black voters would continue to have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.

School districts across the state are required to balance — within 10% — district populations after each census. Balancing district populations is required to ensure equal representation, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The map vote in Denver unwittingly pitted two historically marginalized groups — Blacks and Latinos — against each other.

Board members acknowledged the tension during the public discussion, saying they were trying to preserve Black representation while also recognizing Denver’s growing Latino population.

“Systems of oppression are those that would set our marginalized communities against each other,” said then Board Director Scott Esserman.

Esserman’s vote came down to what he said he believed was important to Denver students.

“Our students being represented by people who look like them is really important,” Esserman said of his vote.

J. Christian Adams, PILF president and general counsel, said the lawsuit is intended to ensure the Voting Rights Act is used to prevent racial discrimination, not require race-based representation.

“The Voting Rights Act was to remedy racial discrimination, not elevate Black and Brown voices,” Adams said.

PILF is a “public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity,” according to the organization’s website.

Scott Pribble, a district spokesperson, declined to comment.

Earlier this year in Callais v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held by a 6-3 decision that the state’s 2024 congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The map had created a second majority-Black district after the state sought to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act following the earlier litigation.

In the two months since the court’s landmark decision, Adams’ organization has also sued Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Illinois Board of Elections challenging the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011.

For decades across the United States, the Voting Rights Act has been used for what’s been called “cracking and packing” districts.

In redistricting, “cracking” refers to the practice of drawing electoral districts to dilute the power of a racial voting block, while “packing” is drawing districts to consolidate it.

“For decades the conventional wisdom was that the Voting Rights Act permitted districts to be designed on the basis of race,” said William Perry Pendley, a local PILF attorney.

Pendley disputes that the voice of racial minorities will be diluted.

“The Voting Rights Act was never intended to address the way districts are carved up,” Pendley said.