(Louisiana Illuminator) The U.S. Supreme Court unexpectedly announced Friday it will not rule on Louisiana’s congressional redistricting case this term, instead scheduling it for further arguments in the fall.
The case, Callais v. Louisiana, involves non-Black voters who sued over the creation of a second majority Black district for the state in the U.S. House. Justices said they will issue an order specifying additional questions it wants addressed before they revisit the case later this year.
“Although we hoped for a decision this term, we welcome a further opportunity to present argument to the Court regarding the state’s impossible task of complying with the Court’s voting precedents,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement to the Illuminator.
“The fair and legal map the Louisiana Legislature enacted in response to our litigation remains in place while the case continues,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We will be back next term to once again defend the new map and the representation Black voters deserve.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative who has served on the court since 1991 when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, issued a dissenting statement, arguing the court has a responsibility to act promptly.
By delaying a decision, which isn’t likely to come until next spring, the court all but ensured a new congressional map, if necessary, would not be in place until the 2028 election and the 2030 census cycle is underway.
Friday’s decision lengthens an already protracted path that began with the 2020 census, which state lawmakers used in 2022 to redraw the state’s congressional districts. The original plan, which did not add a Black district in Louisiana despite the state’s Black population increasing, was found to be unconstitutional, leading state lawmakers to redo the map in 2024.
The 2024 redistricting special session, called by Gov. Jeff Landry in his first days in office, brought together a set of strange bedfellows: Black Democrats, who wanted more minority representation, and white Republicans, who used the opportunity to unseat U.S. Rep. Garrett Graves, who fell out of favor with fellow Republicans at home and in Washington, D.C.
To unseat Graves, Republicans had to draw a map that complied with fewer traditional redistricting principles, creating district lines that run from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, slashing down the center of the state and veering to pick up clusters of Black voters along the way.
During oral arguments in March, Chief Justice John Roberts described Louisiana’s 6th District as a “snake” and raised concerns it might violate the compactness standard typically expected in voting districts.
In spring 2024, an appellate panel of three federal judges — one appointed by former President Bill Clinton and two by President Donald Trump — found the new lines for the 6th Congressional District were illegal, though it was allowed to be used for the 2024 election. They ruled the boundaries had been drawn based on race, rejecting the state’s argument that politics drove its boundaries.
Black voters and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund preferred the map with the more condensed, northeast Louisiana-based district.
The Supreme Court’s decision will hinge on which factor was predominant in drawing the map: race or politics.
The author of the new map, state Sen. Glen Womack, R-Harrisonburg, was explicit during the 2024 redistricting special session that protecting U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, R–Start, who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise was his objective.
Notably left off his list was Graves, who had ruffled feathers at home and in D.C. because he was widely viewed as insufficiently supportive of Scalise’s failed bid for U.S. House speaker. Graves also endorsed Stephen Waguespack, one of Landry’s opponents in the 2023 governor’s race, potentially putting him crosswise with a powerful incoming governor whose interests drove the special session.
But an appellate court disagreed with that reasoning.
“Given the slim majority Republicans hold in the United States House of Representatives, even if such personal or intra-party animosity did or does exist, it is difficult to fathom that Louisiana Republicans would intentionally concede a seat to a Democratic candidate on those bases,” a footnote from the majority opinion reads.
“The Court finds that … District 6 does not satisfy the ‘geographically compact’ and ‘reasonably configured’ Gingles requirement,” the opinion continues.
The Gingles test arose from a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that set standards for determining whether election districts meet federal standards.
