The U.S. Supreme Court will soon review a pivotal case concerning Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, which currently includes two majority-Black districts for the first time in the state’s history. The case, rooted in allegations that previous maps diluted Black voters’ influence, has potential implications for the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and could signal the court’s direction on racial gerrymandering. Though the case won’t affect this year’s elections, a ruling could redefine the application of the VRA in future redistricting efforts nationwide.
The origins of the case date back to a federal lawsuit challenging a map drawn by Louisiana’s Republican legislators after the 2020 census. That map had only one majority-Black district out of six, despite Black voters making up roughly a third of Louisiana’s population. With this map, the state’s congressional delegation consisted of five Republicans and one Democrat, who represented the sole majority-Black district. Civil rights advocates argued that such an arrangement effectively diluted Black voting power, violating the VRA’s protection against racially discriminatory voting practices.
In 2022, a lower court ruled that the initial Republican-drawn map likely violated the VRA and mandated a revision. As a result, the Louisiana legislature drew a new map with a second majority-Black district, giving Democrats a potential new seat. The revised map altered the 6th Congressional District, which had previously been held by Republican Rep. Garret Graves. This change reshaped the district significantly, extending from northwest Louisiana down to East Baton Rouge, a move that critics argued undermined the integrity of the district’s boundaries. House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced concern over the redrawn map, suggesting it could cost Republicans a crucial seat and further jeopardize the GOP’s narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
However, the new map has its own legal hurdles. Earlier this year, a lower court determined that the revised district boundaries could be construed as a racial gerrymander, potentially violating the U.S. Constitution. In response, both the state and civil rights organizations appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on the map’s legal standing and permission to continue using it for upcoming elections.
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has taken a conservative stance toward enforcing the Voting Rights Act, most notably in its 2013 decision to strike down a key section of the law. Yet, in an unexpected decision last year, the conservative-majority court sided with Black voters in Allen v. Milligan, a VRA case out of Alabama. That ruling cleared the way for Louisiana’s current map with two majority-Black districts, which will be in place for the 2024 election cycle.
The ruling in Allen v. Milligan allowed the altered Louisiana map to remain, temporarily establishing two majority-Black districts. This decision raised eyebrows as it appeared to break with the court’s recent conservative trajectory on VRA enforcement. Notably, the three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from the decision, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson arguing that the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case was premature, given the unresolved constitutional questions surrounding the new district boundaries.
More Read
The upcoming arguments may reveal how the court balances its commitment to upholding voting rights with its cautious stance on redistricting. The conservative justices expressed concern earlier this year that blocking the redrawn map so close to the 2024 election cycle could disrupt the electoral process. However, the central question remains: did the Louisiana legislature’s revisions genuinely address concerns of racial equity in representation, or does the map still embody a racial gerrymander, infringing on constitutional protections?
If the Supreme Court sides with Louisiana’s appeal, it could reduce the strength of the Voting Rights Act, further limiting its impact on racial redistricting issues and making it more challenging for plaintiffs to argue against maps they claim are racially biased. A ruling against Louisiana, on the other hand, would reaffirm VRA protections and bolster efforts to secure equitable representation in states with significant minority populations.
As the court prepares to hear arguments early next year, the stakes are high. Louisiana’s case not only impacts its congressional representation but could also set a precedent that affects the broader legal landscape of voting rights across the U.S. A decision by the end of next year could reshape the future of VRA enforcement, potentially setting new standards for how race factors into congressional districting.
