Louisiana laments continuous battles over congressional district maps; yet, the Supreme Court elects for review regardless.
Rewritten Article:
Brace yourself, folks, as the Supreme Court prepares to delve into the nitty-gritty of Louisiana's contentious dispute over its congressional districts. This legal spat, known as Louisiana v. Callais, could send shockwaves throughout the nation, altering the way states consider race when carving out new electoral lines. With the GOP's slender majority in the House, the court's verdict may serve as a deciding factor in who calls the shots following the 2026 election.
Louisiana finds itself in a pickle, caught between a rock and a hard place. Initially, a federal court in 2022 demanded that the state establish a second majority-Black district out of its six total districts. A group of self-proclaimed white voters then sued the state in 2024, claiming the state had overstepped constitutional boundaries by overemphasizing race to meet the initial court's requirements.
"Louisiana is running on empty," state officials told the Supreme Court in December. "By mid-decade, neither Louisiana nor its residents can predict the congressional map they'll call home."
The case has ignited a flurry of crucial questions about race and redistricting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that states avoid diluting the power of minority voters, a response to post-Civil War efforts—especially in the South—to suppress African American political power. Yet, the equal protection clause prohibits a state from drawing districts based solely on race, even when intended to comply with federal law.
Due to the inherent friction between these principles, the Supreme Court has typically granted states some leeway in drawing maps. The crux of the case is precisely how much wiggle room state lawmakers should be allowed.
State officials have proposed that the Supreme Court might use this case to pull federal courts out of the business of deciding racial gerrymanders altogether, following its stance on political gerrymanders in a 2019 decision. However, a coalition of Black plaintiffs – who first challenged the state's original map – are vehemently opposed to this idea because it would drastically curtail their capacity to contest discriminatory maps in the future.
"We certainly wouldn't be thrilled with that outcome," said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, which represents the minority plaintiffs who initially sued. "Such a decision would set a dismal precedent moving forward and complicate matters for civil rights organizations and minority voters to bring subsequent claims."
In recent years, the Supreme Court has gradually diminished the influence of the Voting Rights Act. However, in an astonishing decision in 2023, the court seemed to bolster a key provision of the VRA by commanding Alabama to redraw its map to accommodate an additional Black majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurred with the essential elements of the ruling.
The newly contested district slices diagonally from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast, covering approximately 250 miles to form a district where Black residents account for 54% of voters—an increase from about 24% under the old lines.
The white voters slammed the district as a "twisted and jagged" second majority-Black district that they told the Supreme Court relies on racial stereotypes and dramatically splits a 250-mile swath of Louisiana.
"Why, in this day and age, would Louisiana racially segment new regions where the Black population remains stagnant, integration is flourishing, and there's no evidence of voter suppression?" the plaintiffs questioned.
Despite Black residents making up around a third of Louisiana's population, the state had just one Black representative in its six-member US House delegation prior to the initial court ruling that led to a second Black-majority district. Democrat Rep. Cleo Fields captured the seat in last year's election—adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. Depending on the Supreme Court's decision, Fields may either retain his power or face a redrawing of the maps before the 2026 election.
The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but urged the justices to reinstate a special three-judge district court that would reinstate the current map. Days after assuming office, the Trump administration submitted a letter stating it had "reconsidered the government's position" and that the earlier brief "no longer represents the position of the United States."
News contributions by CNN's Tierney Sneed and Fredreka Schouten.
- The Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could potentially reshape the nation's approach to redistricting, particularly in regards to how states address race when delineating new electoral lines, a crucial factor for lawmakers in succeeding elections.
- In Louisiana, the proposed second majority-Black district has sparked debate among lawmakers and white voters, with the latter claiming the district relies on discriminatory racial stereotypes and splits a vast area of the state unnecessarily.
- State officials asserted that the Supreme Court's decision in this case might set a precedent for excluding federal courts from intervening in disputes over racial gerrymandering, a move that could hinder minority plaintiffs from challenging discriminatory maps in future elections.
