politics
Supreme Court Upholds Louisiana Redistricting Map
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's 2024 congressional map unconstitutionally used race in creating a second majority-Black district. The decision prompted state officials to suspend House primaries until July. Dissenting justices argued the ruling weakens protections under the Voting Rights Act.
TH
The GuardianAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, invalidating Louisiana's congressional redistricting map that created a second majority-Black district. The majority opinion stated that the map violated the Equal Protection Clause by making race the predominant factor in redistricting.
This decision reversed lower court rulings that had required the additional district to address potential violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana's population is approximately one-third Black, and prior findings indicated racially polarized voting patterns in the state.
The 2024 map was adopted after a district court determined that the previous map likely diluted Black voting power under the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court found that the new map amounted to racial gerrymandering.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed an executive order suspending the state's House primaries, originally set for May 16, following the ruling. According to the order reported by Just the News, the suspension applies only to House races and any runoffs, with Senate and state Supreme Court races continuing as scheduled.
The primaries are rescheduled for no earlier than July 15, pending action by the state legislature to adopt a new map. CBS News reported that the delay provides time to implement a compliant redistricting plan.
" The majority opinion characterized the ruling as applying constitutional standards to redistricting practices. RealClearPolitics published an analysis stating that the Supreme Court's ruling "tells a lie," with the author emphasizing its implications for voting rights.
The case relates to prior Supreme Court decisions on race-based government actions, including the 1989 City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. ruling, which applied strict scrutiny to race-conscious measures and found them insufficiently linked to specific past discrimination.
