Black voters in Louisiana had hoped the judge’s decision would be put on hold until after the November election, invalidating a congressional map that includes two majority-black districts.
Supreme Court throws out Louisiana legislative map
The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana congressional map that could have limited the power of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 4 allowed a recent ruling restricting early enforcement of key parts of the Voting Rights Act, raising the possibility that Republicans will enact a new congressional map for Louisiana before the November election.
Courts typically suspend judgments for a month after they are issued to give the losing party time to request a new hearing.
Successful voters wanted the transfer to occur without a waiting period to give more time for new maps to be drawn.
Black voters, fearful of losing their representation in Congress, opposed the request, arguing that since primary voting had already begun, the judge should hold off on the April 29 ruling until after the election.
The court’s response to the emergency request was not signed, but Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring statement that Louisiana was not required to use a map found to be unconstitutional. He suggested there is still time for the state Legislature to adopt a new map.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the court’s decision had “created chaos” in Louisiana.
On April 30, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry postponed the May primary election to give the state Legislature time to approve new maps that could give Republicans one or two seats.
This suspension is being challenged in a separate court.
Another court will have to decide how to apply the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the existing map. Before these judges issue a decision, the Supreme Court must send the decision to the justices, which makes the decision final.
Judges typically do not issue a final ruling until the losing party has exhausted the time allotted to request a retrial of the case. Requests for a rehearing are rarely granted.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the majority said the losing black voters “have not expressed any intention to ask this court to reconsider the decision.”
“And the need for swift action by this court is clear,” Alito wrote.
Jackson, one of the court’s three liberals, said the court appeared to be making a partisan misjudgment by shortening the standard waiting period because of opposition from black voters.
“To avoid appearing biased here, we could choose, as always, to apply the default procedure and remain on the sidelines and not take any position,” Jackson wrote. “But today, the court chose the opposite.”
State officials told the Supreme Court it doesn’t matter how quickly the justices act. Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said the schedule does not affect the state’s ability to create new maps or election processes for this year’s elections.
If that happens, lower courts won’t have to get involved, she said.
The map, rejected 6-3 by the ideologically divided Supreme Court, includes two majority-black districts. A group calling itself Non-Black Voters filed a lawsuit alleging that “racial quotas” cost the state a Republican seat in a close Congress.
These districts were created to protect the voting rights of the state’s black residents, who make up one-third of the state’s population.
But Justice Samuel Alito, speaking for the court’s majority, said the map was an “unconstitutional gerrymander” that violated the rights of non-Black voters who challenged it.
Alito said the Voting Rights Act’s vote dilution protections for racial minorities do not work if maps “do not provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts.” Rather, he said, there must be evidence that district boundaries were established through “intentional discrimination.”
The decision puts both black-majority districts in Louisiana and majority-minority districts in other states at risk of being eliminated in a redraw.
