Louisiana v. Callais

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that, “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

In the redistricting context, Section 2 requires states to draw district maps that do not dilute the votes of voters of color. Plaintiffs who assert that a district map dilutes the voters of color must satisfy four tests.

First, plaintiffs must show it is possible to draw a compact district in which people of color who are citizens and of voting age are a majority. Second, plaintiffs must prove that the voters of color in a district are politically cohesive, i.e., they vote together as a bloc for the candidates of their choice. Third, plaintiffs must prove that there is racially polarized voting in the challenged district in which the white voters in the majority vote as a bloc and consistently defeat the candidates supported by the voters of color in the minority. For example, in Allen v. Milligan, a case challenging Alabama’s congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the trial court cited expert testimony that Black voters’ support for their candidates of choice was on average over 90 percent, while white voters’ support for those same candidates was below 20 percent on average. 

Finally, plaintiffs must prove that, based upon the totality of circumstances, that “political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision” are not equally open to non-white populations, preventing them from equally participating in the political process and electing candidates of their choice.  Several factors are used by courts in evaluating this test, including, but not limited to: the history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political subdivision; the extent of racially polarized voting in the state or political subdivision’s elections; and the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. 

Robinson and Galmon Challenges to 2022 Map 

In March 2022, the Louisiana legislature passed a new congressional map with only one majority-Black district, which combined heavily Black cities like New Orleans and Baton Rouge together. Several lawsuits were then filed, in which plaintiffs argued the map divided Black communities and diluted their voting power. These cases, Robinson and Galmon, were consolidated into a single case.  

The map was subsequently struck down, and on January 22, 2024, the Louisiana legislature drew a remedial map with two majority-Black congressional districts, which the United States Supreme Court allowed to be used for the 2024 election. On April 25, 2024, the district court dismissed the case at the state’s request, stating the passage of a remedial map meant there was no longer a justiciable dispute for the court to hear. 

New Maps and Data

Callais – Challenge to the 2024 Remedial Map 

On January 31, 2024, several plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the remedial map in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, arguing it was racially gerrymandered and requesting a new map be imposed. On April 30, 2024, the district court granted an injunction and enjoined the map, a ruling that was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Louisiana Secretary of State, and the plaintiffs in the case challenging the original map (“Robinson plaintiffs”),who had intervened in the lawsuit, requested an emergency stay from the United States Supreme Court, which granted it on May 15, 2024.  

The remedial map was used in the 2024 election, in which the new majority-Black district, stretching from Baton Rouge to Shreveport, was won by Democratic candidate Cleo Fields, a Black state senator.  

On November 4, 2024, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the case challenging the remedial map. 

On December 26, 2024, LWVUS, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights filed an amicus brief supporting the appellants from Robinson. The brief argued the panel had erred by applying strict scrutiny to the remedial map and declaring it a racial gerrymander, when instead, considering race while drawing districts to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was a long-standing, legal practice necessary to comply with federal law. The amici argued that, if sustained, the panel’s decision would place state legislatures in the position of having lawful enactments to comply with Section 2 and ensuring fair representation being presumed unconstitutional and potentially struck down as racial gerrymandering, in violation of decades of United States Supreme Court precedent.  

The case is currently ongoing before the United States Supreme Court. LWVUS is represented in this matter by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.