MONROE, La. (BRPROUD) — A panel of three federal judges agreed to throw out the new Louisiana Congressional district map adopted by the Legislature earlier this year.
The case was heard in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed in Monroe earlier this year, and oral arguments were heard in Shreveport. District Judges David C. Joseph and Robert R. Summerhays wrote the majority opinion, and Circuit Judge Carl E. Stewart wrote a lengthy dissent.
In their judgment, they wrote that the map, which was designed to create a second majority-Black district to meet requirements set by federal court order out of the Louisiana Middle District, does not meet Equal Protection Clause requirements. They called the current layout an “impermissible racial gerrymander.”
The current map nearly cuts the 4th district, covering western Louisiana, in half with the 6th district. It’s drawn as a narrow, diagonal arm that runs from northwest Louisiana to Baton Rouge.
The judges wrote, “There is no doubt that District 6 divides some established communities of interest from one another while collecting parts of disparate communities of interest into one voting district.”
They said it “also divides the four largest cities and metropolitan areas in its path along clearly racial lines.”
The ruling, as it stands, means the state can’t use the current map in any future elections.
A representative for the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office said they could not comment at this time.
A status conference to discuss what the panel calls an ‘appropriate remedy’ is set for federal court in Shreveport at 10:30 a.m. May 6.
What you need to know about the arguments
If the state did not develop its own map before a mid-January deadline, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick said the court would design the map the state must use.
Attorney General Liz Murrill called the previous district map, adopted in 2022, defendable and lawful. Still, the legislature opted to redraw the map to meet criteria set by the federal court and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Louisiana Legislature approved the new map in a January special session called by Gov. Jeff Landry. The new map adoption met the court’s deadline, and further hearings on the issue were canceled.
Shortly afterward, a new group of Louisiana residents filed the current lawsuit in a north Louisiana federal court. The plaintiffs of the previous lawsuit, who argued the state was diluting the Black vote, signed on as intervenors in the current suit.
In the majority opinion, the judges said the newest map was very similar to one adopted in 1992 and determined to violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The intervenors in the lawsuit and the state argued that the primary goal of this map was to keep GOP lawmakers in office, particularly Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow.
In their 60-page injunction and reason for judgement, the judges wrote, “If the State’s primary goal was to protect congressional incumbents, the evidence in the record does not show that District 6 in its current form was the only way to achieve that objective.”
Plaintiffs argued that the new map was drawn with race as the predominant factor, which is unconstitutional.
“The record includes audio and video recordings, as well as transcripts, of statements made by key political figures such as the Governor of Louisiana, the Louisiana Attorney General, and Louisiana legislators, all of whom expressed that the primary purpose guiding SB8 was to create a second majority-Black district due to the Robinson litigation,” the judges wrote.
State Sen. Glen Womack, who introduced the map that was adopted said, “We all know why we’re here. We were ordered to draw a new Black district, and that’s what I’ve done.”
State Reps. Beau Beaullieu and Josh Carlson also noted race as a determining factor in drawing the new map.
Carlson additionally said that, unlike Alabama, Louisiana lacks concentrated areas with high minority populations. Similar arguments over Alabama voting maps have set precedence in this case.
Joseph and Summerhays determined that a combination of motives led to the disregard of traditional districting principles and the resulting “bizarre” shape of District 6.
While race can be an element of decision-making, it cannot be the main point, the judges wrote, and they determined that race was the deciding factor.
They said a heat map showing the most densely populated areas with minority voters, designed by expert demographer Michael Hefner, showed how the new district was racially gerrymandered.
“In sum, the ‘heat maps’ and demographic data in evidence tell the true story – that race was the predominate factor driving decisions made by the State in drawing the contours of District 6. This evidence shows that the unusual shape of the district reflects an effort to incorporate as much of the dispersed Black population as was necessary to create a majority-Black district,” they wrote.
What did the dissent say?
In his 74-page dissent, Stewart said he isn’t sure plaintiffs met their burden of proof that race was the overwhelming factor used to design the map.
“The totality of the record demonstrates that the Louisiana Legislature weighed various political concerns — including protecting of particular incumbents — alongside race, with no factor predominating over the other,” he said.
He said there is breathing room in the decision-making process for states that the majority has traded in “for a tightly wrapped straight-jacket.”
Louisiana leaders react to the court’s decision
Landry released the following statement:
“As Attorney General, we defended the map passed by the legislature in 2022, as Governor we followed the Federal Courts’ order mandating us to draw a second majority/minority district. The constant inconsistency of the Federal Courts is remarkable and disappointing. The people of Louisiana deserve better from our Federal Courts. Either the Legislature is in control of drawing a map or Federal Courts are, but they both can’t be!”
In a statement, Murrill said:
“I’m still reading the ruling (like everyone else), and will be meeting with my team and the Secretary of State to discuss next steps. We will, of course, be seeking SCOTUS review.
“I’ve said all along the Supreme Court needs to clear this up. The jurisprudence and litigation involving redistricting has made it impossible to not have federal judges drawing maps. It’s not right and they need to fix it.”
U.S. Rep. Troy Carter Sr. (D-La.), who supported the map, voiced his concerns about the decision on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday. “This is just plain WRONG! MATH is MATH! The U.S. Supreme Court must correct this immediately!” he wrote.
“The court’s ruling speaks for itself. It’s the most powerful statement,” said U.S. Rep. Garrett Graves (R-La.).
In a news release from the ACLU, the organization said the fight for a new, majority-Black congressional district isn’t over.
“This decision does not change the fact that a second Black majority district is required for Black voters in Louisiana to have an opportunity for fair and equal representation. We will continue to fight for the fundamental right of Black Louisianians, whose voting power has continually and severely been diluted,” said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.
This story will be updated as more information becomes available.
