Supreme Court Confronts Louisiana Voting Rights Act Case

On March 24, the Supreme Court addressed a highly debated racial gerrymandering case from Louisiana, which encompasses two consolidated lawsuits: Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.

Gerrymandering is the practice of altering electoral district boundaries to advantage a specific political party or group.

Federal courts compelled Louisiana to modify its district boundaries to establish a second black-majority congressional district. Concurrently, a group of non-minority voters filed a lawsuit, asserting that the redistricting amounted to race-based discrimination.

Following the mandated changes, Republicans secured four out of the state’s six U.S. House districts, while Democrats captured two during the 2024 elections. In contrast, after the 2022 elections, Republicans held five seats, leaving Democrats with just one.

The Supreme Court’s decision could significantly influence the legislative branch’s power dynamics. Presently, Republicans hold a narrow majority over Democrats in the U.S. House.

Related Stories

The case originates from a redistricting strategy sanctioned by the Republican-controlled Louisiana State Legislature, which was suspended in June 2022 by Judge Shelly Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The judge concluded that the map, which allowed for one black-majority congressional district, unfairly discriminated against black voters, who represent nearly one-third of Louisiana’s population.

The judge mandated adjustments to the district lines to establish a second black-majority district in adherence to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In November 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit instructed the Legislature to approve the revised map by January 15, 2024. Should the Legislature fail to meet this deadline, the district court could proceed with a trial to finalize the map before the 2024 elections.

This court had set a deadline of June 3, 2024, for the Legislature to revise the map or risk the court drafting its own version. The state requested a stay on the court’s injunction pending appeal, but the request was denied.

On May 10, 2024, Louisiana’s attorneys filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to pause the panel’s judgment.

The state referenced the Purcell principle, which asserts that federal courts should generally refrain from interfering with state election laws as elections approach. This principle was established in the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez.

The Supreme Court’s order stayed an April 30, 2024 ruling made by the panel, which had determined the map could not be utilized in the forthcoming elections.

The general election proceeded in November 2024, with Rep. Cleo Fields (D-Ga.) securing election in the newly adjusted district extending from Shreveport in the northwest to Baton Rouge, following the Mississippi and Red Rivers.

Benjamin Aguinaga, Louisiana Solicitor General, conveyed to the justices that the state found itself in a unique situation.

“Louisiana would prefer not to be in this position,” he stated.

The state was reluctant to be included in the emergency court docket in 2022 and 2024 and “would rather not be embroiled between two parties that hold completely opposing views on how our congressional map should appear,” Aguinaga remarked.

The state had to respond, as it faced the “potential for a federally drawn map that endangered” three prominent members of the U.S. House, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), “thus, considering these factors, we made a politically sensible choice. We designed our own map to safeguard them,” Aguinaga explained.

Aguinaga asserted that the Supreme Court grants states “breathing room” to create their electoral maps.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed Aguinaga, stating that Louisiana’s “probable [Voting Rights Act] violation was sufficient grounds for the state to take the steps it did. Therefore, I’m not sure we even need to discuss the possibility of the court order being incorrect?”

Aguinaga responded, “Correct.”

Jackson continued, indicating, “It existed. Consequently, if it existed, Louisiana had valid reasons to comply with it.”

Stuart Naifeh, representing the minority voters, told the justices that the state was compelled to act.

The Supreme Court “has made it apparent that states have leeway to take appropriate actions to comply with the Voting Rights Act, while balancing the various interests involved in redistricting,” Naifeh stated.

He asserted that Louisiana’s actions were justified after two federal courts preliminarily determined that the state likely violated Section 2 by attempting to adhere to judicial decisions.

Naifeh criticized the panel of federal judges for committing legal misjudgments when they deemed the state’s creation of the additional district unconstitutional.

“Those misjudgments deprived the state of the latitude needed to make political choices, reconcile competing interests, and adhere to federal law,” he remarked.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out to Naifeh that courts’ remedial powers in discrimination cases are not unlimited.

“Regarding equal protection law … the Court has long maintained that race-based remedial actions must have a reasonable conclusion, must be time-limited, and should be temporary in nature,” Kavanaugh commented.

Jackson remarked that the Supreme Court has yet to rule “that race is the predominant factor when a state creates a district to comply with Section 2,” noting that the court “implied the opposite in Shaw v. Reno,” a 1993 decision.

Naifeh consented, explaining that the court “has clearly stated that the intentional establishment of a majority-minority district does not inherently demonstrate racial predominance.”

Edward Greim, the attorney for the non-black voters, conveyed to the justices that the Supreme Court’s “racial gerrymandering jurisprudence” has been flawed for years, being predicated on states forming majority-minority districts for compliance with the Voting Rights Act “whether it was [Department of Justice] coercion under Section 5 [enforcement provisions] or fear of Section 2 repercussions.”

Justice Elena Kagan advised Greim that the redistricting by Louisiana stemmed from political rather than racial motives, focusing on the protection of Republican incumbents.

“What’s wrong with that? If the state is unable to do this, it leaves the state without any flexibility,” she remarked.

The Supreme Court is anticipated to make a decision on the case by the end of June.