The United States Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday morning (April 29) that Louisiana's 2024 election map was unconstitutional leaves the door open for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map and eliminate one of its majority Black districts.
The ruling means that how a district is drawn and its impact on minority voters is no longer the bar for redistricting; inference of intentional discrimination is now the standard.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill — whose office has been arguing against the map — called the decision a “win.”
“The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map,” she wrote. “That was always unconstitutional — and this is a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation’s laws.”
In the state Legislature, Legislative leaders, Senate President Cameron Henry and Speaker of the House Phillip DeVilliar issued a joint statement on the ruling.
“We are reviewing that ruling and meeting with our members, representatives from the executive branch, elections officials and counsel to determine next steps to be taken in the best interests of Louisiana voters and our state, “ the statement said.
Robert Hogan, a political science professor at LSU, said the landmark decision has widespread implications for the country, especially for the South and Black representation in Congress.
“ I just think that this is gonna have long-term implications for the representation of minority interests in the state,” said Hogan. “For a long time, African Americans have been pointing out that they were underrepresented, and they were happy to get a second congressional district in the state, and now that one is going to be wiped away.”
Timing-wise, Louisiana lawmakers may not have enough time to redraw the congressional map before the November election, with early voting to begin Saturday for the closed party primaries for Congress.
At a press conference, Gov. Jeff Landry said he’s frustrated over the timing of the court’s decision.
“They could have dropped it [the decision] on us in February, they could have dropped this on us in January,” he said. “We tried to move the [election] dates as late as possible in order to basically insulate ourselves from any of the court’s decisions. Then the court decides to give it to us on the eve of the election.”
Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry said in a statement that her office is also looking into the ruling and analyzing the opinion to determine the next steps.“We are limited in what we can say at this time as this continues to be active litigation, with the case remanded for proceedings back to the Western District (of Louisiana),” Landry said in a statement.
The ruling could lead to a wave of redistricting around the Gulf South, too. In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves has already called for a special session on redistricting. In Alabama, Republican lawmakers are asking Gov. Kay Ivey for their own special session.
“While we are not in position to have a special session at this time, I hope in light of this new decision, the court is favorable to Alabama,” Ivey said in a statement.
Like Louisiana, Alabama was sued following the 2020 redistricting cycle, and a federal court held that the state violated Section 2 by not including an additional majority-Black congressional district. Last year, the court ordered Alabama to use a court-drawn map that included the additional district. The state sought review of that decision in the Supreme Court, where those applications are still pending.
While the immediate effect will most likely negatively impact minority representation, Hogan said it could prove otherwise in the long term.
“ A lot of people will make the argument that this is something that hurts the Democrats. And I think probably in the short term nationally, it may,” he said. “But what it also does is it's going to create some competitive districts that maybe weren't competitive before.”
Bruce Reilly, deputy director of Voice of the Experienced, a voting rights organization in New Orleans, sees the nationwide impact, but also the effect on local civic life.
“Can they elect their own sheriff, their own mayor, et cetera? Or can the state swoop in and make changes?” Reilly said. “If you don't have control over your local jurisdiction, then you really don't have any democratic rights whatsoever.”
Reactions to the decision were split, with some representatives and legal organizations criticizing it for its disenfranchising nature.
U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields — who represents the district in question — called the decision “a grave setback to voting rights and to the promise of equal political representation for all Americans.”
“Make no mistake: this decision does not reflect some neutral reading of the law,” Fields, who is Black, said in a written statement. “As Justice [Elena] Kagan's powerful dissent makes clear, Congress explicitly rejected an intent-based standard when it amended Section 2 in 1982, because lawmakers understood that requiring proof of discriminatory purpose would make the law all but unenforceable. Today's majority has resurrected exactly that standard — and the practical effect is to make it far harder for minority communities to challenge redistricting maps that dilute their political voice.
“This is especially troubling given the persistent reality that minority candidates are rarely, if ever, elected from districts where they are not the majority, underscoring why fair districting remains essential to ensuring equal representation.”
Fields said he’s looking into legislation to make sure the Voting Rights Act is still upheld under the new map.
U.S. Rep. Troy Carter — who represents New Orleans — said the decision will disenfranchise Black voters in the state.
“This decision will embolden efforts to dismantle majority-Black districts and fracture communities that have finally begun to see themselves reflected in their government,” he wrote. “It sends a dangerous signal that the progress we have made can be undone under the guise of legal theory.”
The National Urban League, a civil rights organization, called the decision “a devastating blow to the core promise of American democracy.”
“This decision is not about neutrality. It is about power,” President and CEO Judy Reese Morse wrote in a statement. “It is about who gets to shape the political landscape, whose voices are amplified, and whose votes are diluted.”
Bradley Heard, deputy law director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, agreed, writing in a press release, “The court cast aside civil rights in favor of a voter suppression agenda built on white supremacy and partisan political preference that is, in reality, discrimination in disguise.”
The Gulf States Newsroom's Elise Catrion Gregg contributed to this report.
