The Supreme Court refused to be drawn back into a dispute over a Louisiana congressional map that could force the creation of an electoral district that enhances the voting power of blacks in the state.
The court’s unsigned order in two related cases, Robinson v. Ardoin (court file 23A281) and Galmon v. Ardoin (court file 23A282), was issued late in the business day on Oct. 19.
The cases are still pending before a federal district court as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Critics say Republicans are trying to drag out legal proceedings that could affect the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives in the congressional elections a little over a year from now. Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the House.
Louisiana’s congressional delegation is overwhelmingly Republican. Republicans hold five of the state’s six U.S. House seats. Both U.S. senators are Republicans.
On Oct. 14, the governor’s mansion flipped from Democrat to Republican. Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry defeated Democrat Shawn Wilson, winning a majority of votes and avoiding a runoff election. The incumbent governor, Democrat John Bel Edwards, was term-limited.
In June 2022, a U.S. district court judge ordered that Louisiana’s map, which currently features one black-majority district out of six in a state with a 33 percent black population, should be redrafted to create another black-majority district.
The judge found that the map probably violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a large language minority group.
Months later, the district court scheduled a hearing about the new proposed map, but the 5th Circuit intervened and gave state officials more time to put together new maps.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and applicants Press Robinson and Edward Galmon Sr., registered voters in Louisiana, asked the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s order, but the justices refused to do so.
The 5th Circuit was wrong to grant a writ of mandamus, which the Supreme Court previously called a “drastic and extraordinary remed[y] … reserved for really extraordinary causes,” the legal defense fund argued in a brief.
A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court commanding a government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to perform a specified official act or duty.
“It is not a tool for appellate courts to manage district court dockets. Nor should it serve as a substitute for appeal. Yet, the Fifth Circuit’s grant of mandamus here does just that,” the brief continued.
“The motions panel usurped the appellate process and asserted unprecedented control of the district court’s ordinary docket management decisions, including whether and when to set a case for trial and whether and when to hold a hearing regarding a remedy for what the district court had already preliminarily enjoined as a likely violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
The state said in its brief that the request for a stay should be denied because the applicants “fail[ed] to establish likelihood of success on the merits.”
The state “had a clear and indisputable right to [mandamus], it had no other adequate means of relief, and … issuance was plainly appropriate under the circumstances.”
The applicants have “no defensible legal argument for short-circuiting the normal litigation process … [and] aren’t confident … if they are forced to adjudicate their claims fully, fairly, finally and with an adequate time for the State to mount a defense in a trial on the merits and after fulsome appellate review,” the brief said.
Justice Jackson said she agreed with the majority’s decision to deny emergency relief but said that the court could return to the cases in the future.
The justice also noted that the Supreme Court previously expressed hope that the litigation would be resolved before the congressional elections scheduled for November 2024. She said Louisiana told the court that the state’s legislature would not consider alternative maps while the litigation remains pending.
Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, a Republican, was named as respondent in both applications. Secretary Ardoin was not on the ballot on Oct. 14 because he decided not to stand for election.
The Epoch Times has reached out for comment to the attorney for Mr. Ardoin, Jason Brett Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky and Josefiak in Haymarket, Virginia.
The Epoch Times is also seeking comment from the attorney for Mr. Robinson, Stuart Charles Naifeh of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc. in New York, New York, and the attorney for Mr. Galmon, Abha Khanna of Elias Law Group in Seattle, Washington.
