Supreme Court Hears Louisiana Case
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case of Louisiana vs. Calais. This case focuses on the establishment of a majority-Black 2nd Congressional District in Louisiana. The outcome could have significant implications for the Voting Rights Act and the practice of race-based gerrymandering, not to mention the balance of power within the U.S. House of Representatives.
Interestingly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the conservative block, previously supported maintaining related Voting Rights Act provisions in an Alabama gerrymandering case last year. He expressed some doubt about the ongoing application of race in districting, suggesting that, perhaps, the authority for race-based redistricting “cannot be extended indefinitely into the future.”
Background
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1980 as a means of enforcing the 15th Amendment, enables both citizens and the federal government to challenge racist voting practices that dilute minority votes.
The Supreme Court has historically stated that, under certain conditions, districts must contain one or more majority-minority areas. A notable case was Thornburgh vs. Jingles in 1986, where the Court laid out a three-step test under Section 2 to establish whether vote dilution had occurred:
- Minority groups must demonstrate they are substantial and geographically compact enough to create a majority in single-member districts.
- They must show political unity.
- They need to prove that the majority group can vote as a bloc, typically to upset the candidate preferred by the minority.
A group of Black voters in Louisiana sued in 2022, arguing that the state’s congressional map only allowed for one district to have a Black majority, despite a third of the state’s population being Black. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating the map violated Article 2.
In response, a federal court deemed the map likely unconstitutional, halting its use and directing Louisiana to draw a new map that includes two majority-Black districts.
U.S. District Judge Sherry Dick mandated a new map that passed through predominantly Black areas, spanning around 400 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. However, this new configuration led to an objection from a group of 12 non-Black voters, who claimed it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated both the 14th and 15th Amendments.
The court was informed that the state had engaged in egregious racial voter segregation, creating lines that divided communities and imposed distances between voters of different races.
After a three-judge district court sided with these plaintiffs, the case reached the Supreme Court. In May 2024, the high court issued an unsigned order, allowing Louisiana to proceed with the two majority-Black districts temporarily while the lower court deliberated.
The Supreme Court had initially heard arguments regarding the case in March, but rescheduled them for June.
Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concern during the reconsideration, suggesting the case should have been decided earlier, especially if the Court’s perspective on Article 2 was “irreparably broken.”
Skepticism Emerges
During the oral arguments on Wednesday, the constitutionality of forming majority-Black districts in accordance with the Voting Rights Act came under scrutiny.
Although Louisiana had previously advocated for new maps, it now appears to align with the argument that race-based redistricting may be unconstitutional. The Trump administration shares this perspective, explicitly stating that “Article II cannot justify majority-minority racially discriminatory districts created to alleviate racial discrimination.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her liberal colleagues seem to think that racially based redistricting is not only permissible but beneficial for society. Meanwhile, conservative justices voiced concern over the legality of such measures.
Justice Kavanaugh referenced former Justice Anthony Kennedy, noting that division based on race might lead to constitutional dilemmas, stressing that blatant racial segregation is a perilous path. Despite this, Kavanaugh didn’t fully back Nelson’s argument that Article II merely addresses existing injustices in society.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Article II has been misinterpreted or applied incorrectly, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito doubted if the new maps truly met the established criteria regarding their compactness.
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns that the current interpretation of Title II could be allowing states to overtly discriminate based on race, which is quite a contentious viewpoint.
In the end, the implications of this case are significant. Some believe a ruling against the Voting Rights Act provision in question could dramatically reshape the Republican presence in the U.S. House, potentially securing 27 additional seats for them in future elections.
Law professor Jonathan Turley noted that if the court were to dismiss this district or invalidate the provision, it would indeed mark a noteworthy legal and political shift.
