Supreme Court Divided Over Louisiana Redistricting Challenge \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The U.S. Supreme Court appears divided over Louisiana’s congressional map adding a second Black majority district. Conservative justices may limit future Voting Rights Act redistricting challenges. A ruling expected by June could reshape political boundaries and future elections.
Louisiana Redistricting Supreme Court Case Quick Looks
- Supreme Court closely divided on Louisiana’s new congressional map.
- Map adds a second Black majority district, now under legal challenge.
- Conservative justices hint at restricting redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
- Louisiana’s “snake-like” 6th district criticized by Chief Justice John Roberts.
- Court previously upheld similar challenges in Alabama, leading to more Black representation.
- Unusual alliance: Louisiana GOP government and civil rights groups defend the map.
- White voters argue race was the predominant factor in redistricting.
- State insists politics and incumbent protection drove map design.
- House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s districts were protected.
- Former Rep. Garret Graves did not seek reelection under the altered map.
- Justice Elena Kagan suggested states need flexibility to comply with rulings.
- Separate lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act’s redistricting provisions.
- Redrawn 6th District increased Black voter share from 25% to 55%.
- Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat, elected to Congress under the new map.
- Louisiana shifts from jungle primary system to partisan primaries in 2026.
- Supreme Court decision could force new map creation under tight deadlines.
Deep Look
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Monday as it heard arguments over Louisiana’s controversial congressional map, which added a second Black majority district after pressure from lower courts. The case places the nation’s highest court in the middle of a heated debate over the intersection of race and politics in redistricting, with broad implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and how states draw political boundaries.
At the center of the legal challenge is Louisiana’s newly drawn 6th Congressional District, which stretches across parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge, dramatically increasing its Black voting population from 25% to 55%. The map was drawn after a federal court ruling found the state’s previous map likely violated the VRA by failing to provide sufficient representation for Black voters.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to the sprawling new district as a “snake,” suggesting skepticism about whether the map met the traditional standard of drawing compact and cohesive electoral districts. Several conservative justices appeared poised to potentially invalidate the map and set new limitations on the ability to bring redistricting lawsuits under the VRA.
A Precedent and a Potential Shift
This case comes just two years after a 5-4 Supreme Court decision upheld a similar VRA challenge in Alabama, with Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s liberal justices to affirm the need for fair representation. That ruling led to the creation of new Black-majority districts in both Alabama and Louisiana, sending two additional Black Democrats to Congress, including Cleo Fields from Louisiana’s 6th District.
However, the outcome in the Louisiana case may differ. The court’s conservative majority has increasingly expressed skepticism toward race-based considerations in public life. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, has argued that courts should no longer be involved in race-based redistricting decisions, calling them political tasks better left to elected officials.
Louisiana’s Defense: Politics Over Race
In an unusual twist, Louisiana’s Republican-led government has joined forces with civil rights groups to defend the congressional map. The state contends that the map was drawn not to prioritize race, but to protect political incumbents, notably House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
State Solicitor General A. Benjamin Aguiñaga told the justices that the state’s motivation was to preserve politically safe districts and that incumbent protection, not racial gerrymandering, drove the map’s boundaries. Political realities, Aguiñaga argued, necessitated changes, especially after former Representative Garret Graves, whose district was heavily altered, chose not to seek reelection after backing a political rival of current Governor Jeff Landry.
White Voter Challenges and Conflicting Lawsuits
Complicating matters, white Louisiana voters have sued, claiming that race was the dominant factor in drawing the new district lines. A three-judge panel agreed with that assessment. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill expressed frustration over conflicting legal rulings, telling reporters after Monday’s hearing that states are caught between competing lawsuits that make compliance nearly impossible.
Murrill emphasized that it should be the Legislature’s role to draw electoral maps, not federal courts, and cautioned against “a game of litigation experts and constant litigating” determining political boundaries.
Justice Kagan Pushes for Flexibility
Among the liberal justices, Elena Kagan appeared sympathetic to the state’s position, suggesting that states need “breathing room” to comply with court rulings while also balancing incumbent protection and political considerations.
“If the state can’t do that, the state has no breathing room,” Kagan noted during arguments, highlighting the difficulty states face in navigating the legal landscape of redistricting.
Another Challenge on the Horizon
Separately, Louisiana is preparing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows minority groups to sue states over discriminatory redistricting plans. That case could reach the Supreme Court in the coming year, potentially upending decades of established civil rights law.
Potential Election Impact
The high court’s decision, expected by late June, will have immediate implications. Should the map be invalidated, Louisiana would need to redraw its districts quickly, with little time before candidates begin filing paperwork for the 2026 election cycle, which will now feature partisan primaries instead of the state’s traditional jungle primary system.
The new partisan primary system means candidates will start collecting signatures by September 2025, leaving state lawmakers scrambling to comply with whichever ruling the court issues.
A Long Road to Resolution
The fight over Louisiana’s congressional maps has stretched on for three years, with two maps blocked by lower courts and two Supreme Court interventions. While the court allowed the map to be used for the 2024 election, Monday’s arguments suggest the legal battle is far from over.
As the United States approaches the next decennial census in 2030, the outcome of this case will set an important precedent for future redistricting efforts — potentially determining whether courts continue to have a say in protecting minority representation or leave those decisions to political actors alone.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.