The United States Supreme Court
Puce Somodevilla/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Puce Somodevilla/Getty Images
The United States Supreme Court
Puce Somodevilla/Getty Images
The United States Supreme Court has, for all intents and purposes, upheld a new congressional redistricting plan in Louisiana that provides for a second majority-black district. But the court’s decision appears to be limited to the current 2024 election cycle.
Just as the court upheld the creation of a second majority-black congressional district in Louisiana, the justices said a new challenge to the second district could be filed, one the court would hear in the next term, too late for the 2024 elections, but with the potential to hamper what remains of the Voting Rights Act.
The 6-3 vote in the case was difficult to understand, with the court’s six conservative justices voting to allow Louisiana’s plan to create two majority-black districts to go into effect, while the court’s three liberals did not. would not have intervened in this case. indicate. Election expert Rick Hasen said liberals likely disagree because Wednesday’s case appears to give the court an additional tool to approve or veto Congress’s redistricting plans months before the election.
Louisiana’s congressional redistricting has had a troubled history since the 2020 census. In 2022, a federal district court ruled that the new map drawn by the state legislature violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the black vote. In a state with six congressional seats and a 31.4% black population, only one district was majority black. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court, but the justices put the case on hold until 2022 while they consider a similar redistricting case from Alabama, and in the meantime the state has used a plan that had been ruled to violate the Voting Rights Act. .
However, when the justices ruled on the Alabama case last June, they ruled in favor of black voters, stating that Alabama’s map had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the black vote instead of adopting a reasonable map comprising two or almost two majorities. majority black voters. At the same time, the justices reversed their earlier decision to grant Louisiana’s request for review, instead sending the case back to the appeals court to either draw new lines for Congress itself or allow the state legislature to do so.
Ultimately, the appeals court gave the first bite of the apple to the state legislature. The Republican-majority Legislature then drew new congressional district lines that included two majority-black districts, but the new map was otherwise largely intended to protect incumbents, including Mike Johnson, who would later become Speaker of the House. House, and Steve Scalise, the Republican majority. leader of the House.
It is then that the affair takes a new turn; A group of conservatives calling themselves “non-African American voters” challenged the House map, saying it amounted to a racial gerrymander in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. Because it was a constitutional challenge, not a statutory one, under the Voting Rights Act, it had to be referred to a three-judge court. Luckily, the panel included two Trump appointees. And, by a vote of 2-1, that court ruled that the state legislature’s map relied too heavily on race and was therefore unconstitutional.
The state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court seeking an emergency stay that would preserve the current map, with two majority-black districts, for this election cycle. Time is running out, the state said, and the secretary of state said her office needs to know by Wednesday, May 15, what the congressional district boundaries are so candidates know in which districts they will run for primary.
“This case cries out for a Purcell stay,” the state argued, a reference to the Supreme Court’s so-called Purcell decision, in which the justices said courts should not interfere with election rules and procedures that are too close of an upcoming election.
Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said Wednesday’s statement This action is one of the few cases in which the Supreme Court has applied the Purcell rule to benefit Democrats, since Louisiana’s majority-black Second District is very likely to elect a Democrat, meaning the addition of a seat for Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. .
That said, nothing is certain beyond this election cycle as the Supreme Court will almost certainly hear the constitutional challenge from “non-African Americans” in the next term.
The state, seeking to have the cake and eat it too, has indicated it will likely support “non-African Americans” in the next term. If the Supreme Court were to ultimately agree, it would deal a major blow to what remains of the once-prized voting rights law.
Bottom line: The Supreme Court allowed Louisiana’s new congressional map to take effect, but with a sword of Damocles hanging over its head, namely the constitutional challenge to the Voting Rights Act.
NPR News
