Racial aspect of redistricting argued at Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered arguments on Wednesday about whether Louisiana’s second majority-black voting district aligns with the Constitution. Louisiana redrew its congressional districts in 2024 so that two of the state’s six congressional districts held a black majority—the previous map from 2022 had only one. 

Debate on Wednesday often referenced the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments, enacted after the Civil War to protect the citizenship and voting rights of formerly enslaved people. The state of Louisiana argued against the constitutionality of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which bars election maps from diluting the impact of minority voters.

How did the arguments go? Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund represented the group of black voters in Louisiana v. Callais, arguing that no precedent existed to support a law being overturned over the statute’s remedial actions that consider race. The non-discrimination language in the 15th Amendment was a permanent right, so the protections against discriminatory voting practices, like diluting minority votes, should be similarly protected, she argued. Upending Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would have a catastrophic impact and upend decades of precedent, Nelson argued.

Several justices questioned Nelson on whether the new district’s creation was motivated by partisan advantage. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that while race-based remedies are allowed, they must be temporary, with a specific framework and time limit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed Kavanaugh’s suggestion of a time limit when using race as a factor when drawing a voting map.

Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga argued that Section 2 is no longer necessary within the state, and that the black voters suing were relying on the state’s history of discrimination, rather than present-day circumstances. Aguiñaga alleged that Section 2 can’t stand up against strict scrutiny, since complying with the Voting Rights Act is not a compelling enough reason to draw majority-minority districts—districts where a minority group has a voting majority.

When questioning Aguiñaga, Kavanaugh voiced concerns about racial representation should the majority-minority districts be dismantled, noting that most of the state’s black candidates were elected by majority-minority districts. Aguiñaga shrugged off the concerns, claiming the case was full of erroneous fears.

Background: A group of black voters sued the state, alleging that the 2022 map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs cited 2020 census data reporting that the minority group constituted about 30% of the state's population, yet only had one majority district of the state’s six districts. A court sided with black voters and ordered a remedial map to be drafted to include a second majority-minority district.

State lawmakers adopted the remedial map in 2024, but a group describing themselves as “non-African American voters” sued, arguing the new district was an unconstitutional race-based gerrymander.

The high court first heard arguments around Louisiana’s new district during its last term, and ordered a second round of oral arguments just before its initial ruling deadline. The justices heard the second round of arguments on Wednesday to decide whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a majority-minority district violates the Constitution.

The state argued that intentionally drawing an additional minority-majority district would violate the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th and 15th Amendments. The clause requires government officials to treat people equally under the law, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. The clause required government officials to provide a valid reason for enacting a law or policy that treats specific people groups differently.

Dig deeper: Read Travis K. Kircher’s report on SCOTUS ordering that Louisiana’s contested map be used in the 2024 election.