|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, two consolidated cases challenging Louisiana’s latest congressional map. The dispute centers on whether the state’s creation of a second majority-Black district, in response to a federal court order, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
After the 2020 census, Louisiana needed to redraw its congressional districts. Despite Black residents making up about a third of the state’s population, the legislature’s 2022 map contained only one majority-Black district. A group of Black voters challenged that map, arguing it diluted Black voting power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A federal court agreed and ordered Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district.
However, a group of “non-African American” voters challenged the new map, arguing that race was the predominant factor in its design, making it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A federal district court agreed and struck down the new map, prompting Louisiana to appeal to the Supreme Court. The state asked the Court to pause the district court’s ruling and allow Louisiana to keep its new map with two majority-Black districts in place until after the 2024 election when the case could be heard.
The heart of the case is whether Louisiana’s decision to draw a second majority-black district was unconstitutional because race was the predominant factor. A decision should be made in the case this summer.
Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, spoke to supporters after the oral argument, noting that the redrawn map is necessary and just.
“The map at issue in this case, a map that was in place during the 2024 election cycle, without question meets the standard of fairness and lawfulness. The map satisfies both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, despite the interesting questions you heard from the bench today,” said Nelson.
This case follows a similar Supreme Court battle over Alabama’s congressional map. In Allen v. Milligan, the Court ruled that Alabama’s map, which had only one majority-Black district, likely violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting Black voting power. The Court ordered Alabama to redraw its map to include a second majority-Black district. Alabama resisted, arguing that to comply with the VRA it could not unconstitutionally redistrict based on race.
The Court ultimately rejected Alabama’s arguments, reinforcing that Section 2 requires states to create majority-minority districts when necessary to ensure fair representation. Louisiana’s legal team is now utilizing many of Alabama’s same arguments, contending that Section 2 is unconstitutional but that they followed court orders nonetheless.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast a decisive vote in Alabama’s redistricting case, questioned whether there should be a “logical endpoint” when Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act no longer applies to race-based redistricting claims.
At the end of the argument, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga urged the justices to reverse the three-judge district court’s ruling.
“If the Court holds otherwise, then respectfully, I don’t know what this Court’s voting cases mean,” said Aguiñaga.
