Supreme Court Allows Louisiana and Alabama to Use New Congressional Maps

The Supreme Court has permitted Louisiana and Alabama to proceed with new congressional maps that will eliminate majority-Black districts held by Democrats. The court released its ruling on a Louisiana case less than three weeks before that state's congressional primary, after delaying action for more than a year.

Louisiana and Alabama are now moving back their primaries to reset their districts, and other states could follow. The rulings came in cases centered on the Voting Rights Act. The decisions allow the states to move forward with maps that had previously been blocked.

In Louisiana, some ballots had already been returned when the governor announced that House elections originally scheduled for May 16 would be suspended. In Alabama, primaries due to take place on May 19 will now be pushed back to August for the affected districts.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, granted special requests from both states to expedite the process. The changes will have national implications ahead of this year's midterm elections that will determine control of the House.

The rulings have prompted accusations that the Supreme Court is interfering in election cases when the process is already underway, despite its frequent admonitions to lower courts not to do so. A recent NBC News poll showed that confidence in the court is at an all-time low.

The court has also attracted criticism for its frequent rulings in favor of the Trump administration. "I don’t think you can see this as anything other than a raw exercise of power," a lawyer at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law said in an interview.

"The court is effectively, whether they are trying to or not, playing an outsized role in this midterm election. It’s quite unfortunate they have chosen this path," he added.

The Supreme Court often relies on a 2006 ruling called Purcell v. Gonzalez, which gave rise to the Purcell principle urging judges to show restraint ahead of an election. In that case, the court blocked a ruling that prevented Arizona from implementing a photo ID requirement for voter registration.

The principle holds that court orders affecting elections can result in voter confusion and that the risk increases as an election draws closer. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Louisiana case and referenced the Purcell principle as a reason not to intervene.

In response, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said it was groundless and irresponsible to suggest the court was abusing its power. The majority issued the Louisiana and Alabama decisions without explaining its reasoning or mentioning the Purcell principle.

Election law experts said the court has applied the principle unevenly in recent cases. One expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School said the principle does not apply when a court is lifting an injunction, as the Supreme Court did this week.

Another expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said the principle now seems to suggest that courts simply should not interfere in approaching elections at all.