\n<\/p>\n
Starting in late 2021, Louisiana state legislators traveled<\/a> across the state in a \u201cRedistricting Roadshow,\u201d where for months they held town hall presentations about the upcoming redistricting process and heard voters\u2019 concerns about potential new maps.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cPeople showed up to those roadshows and consistently said that they wanted to see fair maps drawn,\u201d state Sen. Royce Duplessis (D) said<\/a>. \u201cEverything that I gathered from the roadshows was that people wanted to see a map that was compliant . . . with the Voting Rights Act.\u201d<\/p>\n They didn\u2019t get that. Instead, GOP lawmakers draw congressional maps that were later found by a federal court to have illegally diluted the power of Black voters. That kicked off a winding legal saga that has led to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Monday will hear a bid by conservatives to use the Louisiana case to deal another crippling blow to the Voting Rights Act.\u00a0<\/p>\n At stake is not only whether Black voters in Louisiana have access to fair representation \u2014 but also whether the landmark law, already badly weakened over the last decade-plus, can remain an effective tool to block racial discrimination in the redistricting process.<\/p>\n Louisiana lawmakers redraw state and congressional maps every 10 years based on the latest census data to, in theory, ensure that voters have equitable and fair representation throughout the state. Black voters comprise a third of Louisiana\u2019s population but, since the mid-\u201990s, only one of the state\u2019s six congressional districts has been a majority Black district.<\/p>\n After the roadshow, the state\u2019s GOP-majority legislature passed a map that ultimately a federal court struck down<\/a> for discriminating against Black voters, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A new map was drawn<\/a>\u00a0 with a second majority-Black District to comply with Section 2. That was thanks in part to the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s pivotal ruling<\/a> in Allen v. Milligan<\/em> in 2023 affirming Section 2, but also thanks to the countless voters who advocated for a second majority-Black district district.<\/p>\n \u201cAdvocates sent letters and had individual conversations with members of the LLBC,\u201d about the redrawing of the map, according to an amicus brief filed<\/a> by the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus. \u201cThe public arrived at the state house and gave public comment. Members of the LLBC and dozens of advocates braved an ice storm over Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend to encourage legislators to pass a fair map.\u201d<\/p>\n In January 2024, the state finally passed a new map with a second majority-Black district.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI think the victory there wasn\u2019t just about this specific district,\u201d Peter Robins-Brown, executive director of Louisiana Progress, told Democracy Docket. \u201cIt was about showing people they have the power to make change\u2026 where your vote and your voice counts and matters.\u201d<\/p>\n But almost immediately after Louisiana\u2019s new map passed, a group identifying themselves as \u201cnon-African American voters\u201d sued<\/a> to stop it, arguing the new majority-Black district created a racial gerrymander, in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A federal district court agreed<\/a> and struck down the new map last April, ordering the legislature to draw a new one.\u00a0<\/p>\n With the 2024 election fast approaching, the state asked<\/a> SCOTUS to pause the district court\u2019s ruling and allow Louisiana to keep its new map with two majority-Black districts in place \u2014\u00a0 at least until after the election, when SCOTUS can hear<\/a> the case and make its decision on the maps.\u00a0<\/p>\n With the election in the rearview mirror, SCOTUS is set to hear oral argument Monday in two cases \u2014 Louisiana v. Callais <\/em>and Robinson v. Callais<\/em> \u2014 consolidated into one case concerning Louisiana\u2019s new congressional map.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the heart of the legal drama is Louisiana\u2019s newly created 6th Congressional District, which stretches from Caddo Parish to East Baton Rouge Parish. The creation of the new 6th district came after courts found that Louisiana\u2019s previous map, with only one majority-Black district, likely violated<\/a> Section 2 of the VRA<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n But in coming up with a new map, the non-Black voters argued that the state created a racial gerrymander because its purpose in drawing the map was to \u201csegregate voters based entirely on their races and create two majority-African American voting districts and four majority non-African American districts, without regard for any traditional redistricting criteria,\u201d their complaint said<\/a>.<\/p>\n Essentially, the non-Black plaintiffs argued that creating a new map to give Louisiana fair representation with two majority-Black Congressional districts and comply with the VRA, it created a \u201ctextbook racial gerrymandering and violated the U.S. Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n It might sound unusual but Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center, described the argument to Democracy Docket as \u201csort of a throwback to the original racial gerrymandering cases, which were brought by white voters to challenge Voting Rights Act districts.\u201d Cases like Shaw v. Reno<\/em><\/a> in 1993, where five white voters challenged the state\u2019s creation of two majority-Black districts, alleging an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.<\/p>\n If SCOTUS were to rule against Louisiana and overturn their congressional map with two majority-Black districts, it would have a ripple effect in that \u201cit could limit the discretion that states have when complying with the Voting Rights Act,\u201d Li said. \u201cIt would sort of assume that every district that\u2019s drawn to be majority Black or majority Latino or whatever should be automatically presumed to be a racial gerrymander unless the state can prove otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n That would have huge implications for Section 2 of the VRA, which essentially allows people to sue over any discriminatory voting law or map. But Li is skeptical about the notion that SCOTUS is about to completely upend Section 2 with this case.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI just don\u2019t think this is the case to do that,\u201d Li said. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to reconcile that, not only with Allen v. Milligan<\/em> but Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP<\/em> racial gerrymander case, which said that the legislature gets the presumption of good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n For Robins-Brown, the fight for fair maps in Louisiana has been going on for the better part of a decade. \u201cI thought it would be something that I spent a few years preparing for,\u201d he said. \u201cFight the fight in 2020, and then set it aside for a decade. Obviously it has not worked out like that.\u201d<\/p>\n He\u2019s not the only one who\u2019s been fighting for fair maps for a long time.\u00a0<\/p>\nA dubious legal argument\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
A fight for fair maps\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n