The Supreme Court appeared to be divided along partisan lines during oral arguments on Monday regarding the establishment of a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana. This significant case has the potential to influence the balance of power in Congress, impact the landmark Voting Rights Act, and shape how states address race when delineating electoral maps.
The high court is reviewing a complex dispute concerning how Louisiana should draw its six congressional districts. Years of legal battles, fueled by lawsuits from both Black voters and civil rights groups, as well as non-Black voters, have left state officials in a challenging position. Benjamin Aguiñaga, the state solicitor general, expressed the frustrations of state officials, stating, “Louisiana would rather not be here. We would rather not be caught between two parties with diametrically opposed visions of what our congressional map should look like.”
At the core of this case is the question of how much weight states can give to race when drawing legislative maps. The Voting Rights Act granted states the authority to consider race in an effort to combat discriminatory electoral practices. However, the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause prohibits explicit racial gerrymandering, mandating that all individuals be treated equally.
Several conservative justices displayed skepticism regarding the compatibility of the Voting Rights Act's objectives to rectify past discrimination with the Equal Protection Clause. They seem inclined to deem certain provisions of the act unconstitutional. In contrast, the court's three liberal justices appeared to support the creation of the second Black-majority district, highlighting the ideological split within the court.
The legal saga began in 2022 when the Louisiana legislature revised the state's congressional districts following the 2020 census. The newly drawn map included one majority Black district encompassing New Orleans and parts of Baton Rouge. This arrangement led to a lawsuit from Black voters and civil rights advocates, who contended that the map undermined their voting power as mandated by the Voting Rights Act. They argued for the establishment of a second Black-majority district, pointing out that African Americans constitute about a third of the state's electorate.
A federal court in Louisiana ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting the state from using the contested map for the 2022 congressional elections and mandating a new map be drawn. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld this decision, further complicating the state's legislative redistricting process.
In 2024, the Republican-controlled Louisiana legislature redrew the congressional map, resulting in the creation of a second majority-Black district. However, this redraw also aimed to secure the seats of influential Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Steve Scalise. Subsequently, a group of self-identified “non-African American voters” filed a lawsuit claiming that the new Black-majority district constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
In response, the state, alongside Black voters and civil rights organizations, sought to intervene in the case. A three-judge panel from the Louisiana district court ruled in favor of the “non-African American voters,” determining that race was the primary factor in the creation of the new district. As a result, the court blocked the establishment of the new district, prompting appeals that have now reached the Supreme Court.
A decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by summer, which will be pivotal in determining the future of legislative maps in Louisiana and potentially across the nation. This case not only underscores the ongoing debate over race and representation but also highlights the intricate relationship between law, politics, and electoral fairness.
This is a developing story, and further updates will be provided as new information becomes available.
