Whatever the court decides could affect the makeup of the next U.S. Congress.
Federal judges who recently rejected Louisiana’s congressional election map that gave the state a second mostly black district have now ordered the state Legislature to pass a new map by June 3 or face the prospect that judges will simply impose one.
In an
order filed on May 7 at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, three judges wrote that they would begin to put together their own version of a congressional map while giving Louisiana lawmakers a chance to come up with their own version by the deadline.
“The Court notes that the Louisiana Legislature is in session through June 3, 2024, and this Court provides it with the opportunity to enact a new Congressional map during that time period,” the judges wrote.
“However, given the time limitations outlined by the Secretary of State [Doc. 217], this Court must concurrently proceed with the ‘unwelcome obligation’ of drawing a remedial map to ensure that a compliant map is in place in time for the 2024 congressional election.”
Whatever comes out of the court could affect the makeup of the next U.S. Congress. A new mostly black district would give Democrats the chance to capture another House seat, given the prevailing voting patterns in Louisiana.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill
said in a statement that the ruling threatens the ability of the secretary of state to conduct a stable and fair election at a time “when concerns about election integrity are higher than ever.”
“Today, three federal judges who never spent a day running an election have ignored uncontradicted testimony that we need a map by May 15, and once again turned Louisiana’s Congressional elections upside down,” Ms. Murrill wrote, noting that the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The latest development comes after the court on April 30
rejected a map that converted District Six, represented by Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), into a mostly black district. Democratic state Sen. Cleo Fields, a former congressman who is black, has indicated that he would run for the seat.
The judges said in their
April 30 opinion that the newest map violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because race was the predominant factor driving its creation.
The latest order is the newest development in a back-and-forth legal battle that has taken place in two federal court districts and an appeals court.
Background
The battle over Louisiana’s congressional map has been marked by twists and turns, including when then-Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat,
vetoed the Republican-led redistricting map, prompting lawmakers to respond by overriding his objection and turning the map into law.
After the veto was overridden, a coalition of plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued.
Eventually, this led to a lower court
ruling, issued in June 2022 by U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick, that mandated a revision of the map to incorporate a second majority-black district. This prompted an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
issued an order on Nov. 10, 2023, requiring the state legislature to approve the new map by mid-January 2024.
The appeals court’s order noted that if the state legislature failed to adopt a new map by the deadline, the lower court should move ahead to a trial to finalize the redrawn boundaries in time for the 2024 election.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who was Louisiana’s governor-elect at the time of the appellate court ruling, said he intended to call a special session to redraw the map.
In January, Louisiana lawmakers approved a new map during the special legislative session, and Mr. Landry subsequently
signed it into law.
In signing the legislation, Mr. Landry said the move was about state lawmakers maintaining control of the redistricting process rather than letting the courts decide.
“We took the pen out of the hand of a non-elected judge and placed it in the hands of the people,” Mr. Landry said in a
post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
However, the new map was challenged in court by voters who claimed that the state had engaged in the “explicit, racial segregation of voters and intentional discrimination against voters based on race.”
They also alleged that the new map violated their 14th and 15th Amendment rights.
In a 2–1 split decision on April 30, the judges sided with the plaintiffs.
In a dissent, Circuit Court Judge Carl E. Stewart, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that he did not find that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit had met their burden of establishing that the new map amounts to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
At the time, Ms. Murrill vowed to seek Supreme Court review.
In a latest May 7 statement on the matter, she said, “We will be heading this week to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Katabella Robertson contributed to this report.
