Supreme Court to Rehear Louisiana Gerrymandering Case
WASHINGTON — In a twist on the last day of its term, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it will rehear a challenge to the constitutionality of Louisiana’s latest congressional map after the court reconvenes in October.
The justices did not give a reason for restoring the case to their calendar, and said if necessary it will specify any additional questions it wants to be addressed when it issues its scheduling order.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, expressing concerns about the court failing to address the redistricting case in a timely matter.
Louisiana v. Callais was argued before the court on March 24.
The dispute in the case revolves around the latest interaction of Louisiana’s congressional district map, which was created after a lower court held that its initial map likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
The problem, in the eyes of the lower court, was that the initial map contained only one majority-Black district, which was at odds with the demographics of the state.
In response, the legislature created a new map that contained a second majority-Black district.
A group of voters describing themselves as “non-African American” challenged the map, contending that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, grouping voters in districts based primarily on their race.
State lawmakers, however, argued that they were merely trying to comply with a decision by the lower court finding that the prior map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, while at the same time protecting several high-profile Republican incumbents, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La.
In his dissent, Thomas wrote that “Congress requires this court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly.
“That resolution is particularly critical here, as these cases highlight the intractable conflict between this court’s interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 … and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,” he continued.
“The Constitution is supreme over statutes,” Thomas added, citing Marbury v. Madison, “and no intervening developments will change that. I thus see no reason to avoid deciding these cases now.”
Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, a fair elections and fair districts advocacy group, said Friday that the “fight to protect equal representation in the Pelican State will continue.
“This very Court ruled just two years ago to uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that precedent makes this case all the more straightforward,” Jenkins said. “To comply with that law, Louisiana must have a congressional map that includes two Black opportunity districts. Any decision coming out of a reargument of this case should not reverse that.”
Dan can be reached at [email protected] and on X @DanMcCue
We're proud to make our journalism accessible to everyone, but producing high-quality journalism comes at a cost. That's why we need your help. By making a contribution today, you'll be supporting TWN and ensuring that we can keep providing our journalism for free to the public.
Donate now and help us continue to publish TWN’s distinctive journalism. Thank you for your support!
