The U.S. Supreme Court, as seen on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the scope of a Louisiana redistricting case that could weaken key provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
In a brief order released Friday afternoon, the court reframed the appeal in Callais v. Louisiana, a lawsuit that non-Black voters filed against the state over the creation of a second majority Black district for the state in the U.S. House. The justices intend to look at whether a state violates the U.S. Constitution when it seeks to remedy a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
In the order, the court asked parties to the case to answer “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
The 14th Amendment, in part, covers representation in Congress, and the 15th Amendment prevents citizens from being denied the right to vote based on their race.
If the justices determine Louisiana violated the constitution with its latest congressional map, it could undermine the Voting Rights Act. The legislation was approved in 1965 to bolster the protections granted in the 14th and 15th Amendments. It has been amended five times since then to strengthen its provisions, though voting rights advocates note federal court rulings over the past decade have chipped away at the law.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
At question in the Callais case is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting laws or procedures that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group.
John Bisognano, president of the National Redistricting Foundation, a voting rights organization, said courts have never ruled there is a conflict between the Constitution and Section 2. The Supreme Court upheld Section 2 in its 2022 decision in Allen v. Milligan, the Alabama case that required lawmakers there to add a second majority-Black congressional district.
“To comply with that law, Louisiana must have a congressional map that includes two Black opportunity districts,” Bisognano said in a statement. “If the Court decides to now undo that precedent, it would be a head-spinning reversal of itself.”
Bringing the Voting Rights Act into question makes the case among the most important the court will rule on in its upcoming term. The decision could have nationwide implications, as it could set the standard for the degree to which race can be considered during the election map-drawing process that must occur after each decennial census.
In June, the Supreme Court punted a ruling in the Callais case, indicating it needed to hear additional arguments before reaching its decision. The rare move came with little explanation and essentially meant a new congressional map, if ultimately necessary, would not be in place until the 2028 election, when the 2030 census count would be underway.
The court has given Louisiana until Aug. 27 to file a response to their question. White plaintiffs challenging the map will have until Sept. 17 to respond.
Friday’s announcement complicated an already long and winding process in Louisiana that began with the 2020 census, which state lawmakers used in 2022 to redraw the state’s congressional districts. The original map, which did not add a Black district in Louisiana despite the state’s Black population increasing, was found to be unconstitutional, leading state lawmakers to redo the boundaries in 2024.
The 2024 redistricting special session, called by Gov. Jeff Landry in his first days in office, brought together a set of strange bedfellows: Black Democrats, who wanted more minority representation; and white Republicans, who used the opportunity to unseat 6th District U.S. Rep. Garret Graves, who fell out of favor with fellow Republicans at home and in Washington, D.C.
To unseat Graves, Republicans had to draw a map that complied with fewer traditional redistricting principles, creating district lines that run from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, slashing down the center of the state and veering to pick up clusters of Black voters along the way.
During oral arguments in March, Chief Justice John Roberts described Louisiana’s 6th District as a “snake” and raised concerns it might violate the compactness standard typically expected in voting districts.
In spring 2024, an appellate panel of three federal judges — one appointed by former President Bill Clinton and two by President Donald Trump — found the new lines for the 6th Congressional District were illegal, though it was allowed to be used for the 2024 election. They ruled the boundaries had been drawn based on race, rejecting the state’s argument that politics drove its boundaries.
Black voters and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund preferred the map with the more condensed, northeast Louisiana-based district. Some of those Black voters have intervened as plaintiffs in the Callais case.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The author of the new map, state Sen. Glen Womack, R-Harrisonburg, was explicit during the 2024 redistricting special session that protecting U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, R–Start, who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Shreveport, and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, was his objective.
Notably left off his list was Graves, who had ruffled feathers at home and in D.C. because he was widely viewed as insufficiently supportive of Scalise’s failed bid for U.S. House speaker. Graves also endorsed Stephen Waguespack, one of Landry’s opponents in the 2023 governor’s race, potentially putting him crosswise with a powerful incoming governor whose interests drove the special session.
The appellate court panel disagreed that GOP politics was the driving force behind the map’s lines.
“Given the slim majority Republicans hold in the United States House of Representatives, even if such personal or intra-party animosity did or does exist, it is difficult to fathom that Louisiana Republicans would intentionally concede a seat to a Democratic candidate on those bases,” a footnote from the majority opinion reads.
“The Court finds that … District 6 does not satisfy the ‘geographically compact’ and ‘reasonably configured’ Gingles requirement,” the opinion continues.
The Gingles test arose from a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that set standards for determining whether election districts meet federal standards.
This is a developing story
Comments