Washington — The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday is contemplating for the second time a long-running legal fight over Louisiana’s congressional map, a case that would have vital ramifications not only for political illustration within the state, but in addition for its potential to weaken Part 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
At concern within the case is whether or not state lawmakers’ intentional drawing of a second majority-minority district — undertaken to treatment a possible violation of Part 2 — runs afoul of the 14th and fifteenth Amendments of the Structure.
The excessive court docket initially heard arguments in March over whether or not to go away in place the Home district traces re-drawn in 2024 to incorporate a second majority-Black district. However the justices didn’t concern a call within the case and as an alternative scheduled it for re-argument in its new term, which started final week.
The case initially centered on a extra slender set of points in regards to the map, however in August, the Supreme Court docket requested Louisiana officers and voters concerned within the problem to address whether race-based redistricting comports with the Structure.
That new query upped the stakes of the case, as Republicans in Louisiana urge the Supreme Court docket to forbid the consideration of race within the drawing of voting traces. A choice within the state’s favor may upend Part 2 and deal one other blow to the landmark voting rights regulation greater than 10 years after the Supreme Court docket gutted considered one of its key provisions.
The authorized combat over Louisiana’s congressional map dates again to 2022, when GOP lawmakers within the state drew new Home district traces after the 2020 Census. That map consisted of 5 majority-White districts and one majority-Black district. Practically one-third of Louisiana’s inhabitants is Black, in keeping with Census data.
A gaggle of African American voters challenged the map as a violation of Part 2 as a result of it diluted Black voting power, they argued. A choose in Baton Rouge agreed, discovering the map disadvantaged Black voters of the possibility to elect their most popular candidate, and she or he ordered the state to place a remedial map in place with a second majority-minority congressional district.
The brand new plan adopted by the Louisiana legislature in 2024 reconfigured the state’s sixth Congressional District, which state lawmakers mentioned was in an effort to carry it into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The brand new District 6 has a Black voting-age inhabitants of roughly 51% and stretches throughout the state from Shreveport, in Louisiana’s northwest nook, to Baton Rouge, within the southeast. Congressman Cleo Fields, a Democrat who’s Black, was elected to signify the district final November.
State lawmakers mentioned that they had a political purpose in thoughts, too, when recrafting the voting boundaries: to guard key Republican incumbents within the Home, particularly Home Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Chief Steve Scalise and Rep. Julia Letlow, who sits on the highly effective Appropriations panel.
However after the brand new map was adopted, a bunch of 12 self-described “non-African-American” voters challenged the boundaries, alleging the brand new District 6 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A divided panel of three judges in Shreveport sided with the voters and located that the state legislature relied an excessive amount of on race when it crafted the brand new map.
The case landed earlier than the Supreme Court docket in its final time period, and Louisiana Republicans joined with Black voters and voting rights teams in urging the justices to go away the brand new congressional map in place. However with the case set to be reargued, and the main focus now on the constitutionality of race-based redistricting, state GOP lawmakers are not defending their district traces.
As an alternative, state officers are arguing that the there ought to be “zero tolerance for any consideration of race.”
“[R]ace-based redistricting mandated by Part 2 is unconstitutional as a result of it violates fundamental equal safety ideas: It makes use of race as a stereotype, makes use of race as a detrimental, and has no logical finish level,” Louisiana Legal professional Basic Elizabeth Murrill, a Republican, and Solicitor Basic Benjamin Aguinaga wrote in a filing. “Accordingly, Part 2 is unconstitutional insofar because it requires race-based redistricting. “
The Trump administration is backing Louisiana and the “non-African-American” voters within the case and has urged the Supreme Court docket to tighten the requirements for proving illegal vote dilution beneath Part 2. The framework in place since 1986 requires plaintiffs to indicate racial polarization in voting, along with different preconditions.
“Too usually, Part 2 is deployed as a type of electoral race-based affirmative motion to undo a State’s constitutional pursuit of political ends. That misuse of Part 2 is unconstitutional,” Solicitor Basic D. John Sauer wrote in a filing.
However attorneys for the voters who challenged the preliminary district traces, which have been then redrawn to incorporate a second majority-Black district, argue the brand new map largely prioritized Republicans’ political targets of defending key incumbents. Any consideration of race, they mentioned, was restricted and pushed by a compelling curiosity in addressing a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
“[T]he notion that the solar has set on the necessity for race-conscious remedial redistricting for recognized situations of racial vote dilution is opposite to each the very fact of ongoing discrimination in Louisiana and the textual content and objective of [Section 2] because it was amended in 1982 and has been persistently interpreted by this Court docket ever since,” attorneys for the Black Louisianans wrote in a filing.
They warned that eradicating Part 2’s protections for minority voters in Louisiana “is not going to finish discrimination there or result in a race-blind society, however it might properly result in a extreme lower in minority illustration in any respect ranges of presidency in lots of components of the nation.”
With out the availability, “jurisdictions may merely eradicate minority alternative districts even the place they continue to be crucial for voters of shade to have any alternative to elect candidates of alternative, wiping out minority illustration and re-segregating legislatures, metropolis councils, and faculty boards — as some have lately tried to do,” attorneys wrote.
The Supreme Court docket is re-hearing the case involving Louisiana’s map simply over two years after it upheld Part 2 and reaffirmed the framework for proving vote dilution set out within the 1986 ruling. The excessive court docket split 5-4 in that 2023 case, which concerned a problem to Alabama’s congressional map, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh becoming a member of the three liberal justices within the majority.
Whereas the excessive court docket rejected the possibility to weaken Part 2, Kavanaugh prompt that there should be an finish level for the usage of race-based cures. He wrote in a concurring opinion that “the authority to conduct race-based redistricting can’t prolong indefinitely into the long run.”
Each Kavanaugh and Roberts will likely be key because the Supreme Court docket weighs the constitutionality of race-based map-making. The 2 justices additionally voted to outlaw the use of race as a consider school admissions, a call that got here down in the identical time period because the Alabama voting rights dispute.
Roberts, specifically, has lengthy denounced racial classifications. In a 2006 concurring opinion, the chief justice wrote, “it’s a sordid enterprise, this divvying us up by race.” He additionally authored the 2013 majority opinion that dismantled Part 5 of the Voting Rights Act, writing, “our nation has modified, and whereas any racial discrimination in voting is an excessive amount of, Congress should be certain that the laws it passes to treatment that drawback speaks to present circumstances.”
A choice from the Supreme Court docket is anticipated by the top of June or early July.
