ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court blocks lower court ruling over Louisiana’s Republican-drawn congressional district map

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday put on hold a lower court ruling that Louisiana must draw new congressional districts before the 2022 elections to increase Black voting power.

As a result, Louisiana’s November congressional elections will be held using a Republican-drawn map with white majorities in five of six districts. The high court’s ruling paused an earlier decision by a federal judge concerned the map violates the Voting Rights Act and dilutes Black voter clout.


Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, expressed disappointment with the development and reiterated his stance that creating a second African-American majority district was “about simple math, basic fairness, and the rule of law.”

“Black Louisianans make up one third of our population, and one third of our districts should be majority Black when such a map can be drawn, and, as has been clearly demonstrated, that map is more compact, better adheres to the legal principles governing redistricting, and will perform,” he said.


With the three liberal justices dissenting, the high court short-circuited the earlier order from U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick to create a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. As the map stands, five of Louisiana’s six seats appear likely to remain in Republican hands.

State Rep. Vincent Pierre, chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, said he was “disheartened” by the Supreme Court’s decision and added that “hopes for change in the short term have been dashed.” The Democrat described the map approved by the legislature as an “obvious violation” of the Voting Rights Act.

Democrats and the Black Caucus argue that by the numbers at least two of the six districts should have Black majorities.

The court’s action is similar to an order issued in February in Alabama that allowed the state to hold elections in 2022 under a map drawn by Alabama’s GOP-controlled legislature that contains one majority-Black district. Alabama has seven seats in the House of Representatives.

The justices are hearing arguments in the Alabama case in October. The Louisiana case will remain on hold under the court renders a decision on the Alabama case, the justices said.

Every 10 years, state lawmakers — armed with new U.S. Census Bureau information — redraw political boundaries for seats in the U.S. House, state Senate, state House, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Public Service Commission. The process ultimately affects which political parties, viewpoints and people control the government bodies that write laws, set utility rates and create public school policies.

This year’s redistricting process in Louisiana has been a tense political tug-of-war, with the Republican-dominated legislature and Edwards fighting over the boundaries since February, when lawmakers approved a congressional map with white majorities in five of six districts. The governor vetoed the map. However the legislature overrode the veto — marking the first time in nearly three decades that lawmakers refused to accept a governor’s refusal of a bill they had passed.

Sen. Sharon Hewitt, a Slidell Republican and a leader in the remapping effort, has insisted that trying to include the state’s widely dispersed Black population in two separate congressional districts would result in two districts with very narrow Black majorities that could actually diminish Black voter power.

Hewitt tweeted on Tuesday that she was “very pleased” by the Supreme Court’s decision and maintains that the map has always been constitutional.

Along with tense debate on Louisiana’s House and Senate floor, the legal battle to determine the state’s congressional boundaries has played out, simultaneously, at all three levels of the federal judiciary.

In early June, the federal judge Dick struck down the map for violating the Voting Rights Act, citing that the “evidence of Louisiana’s long and ongoing history of voting-related discrimination weighs heavily in favor of Plaintiffs.” Dick, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama, ordered lawmakers to redesign the map and this time include a second majority Black district by June 20.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal briefly put a hold on Dick’s deadline, but later removed the hold and scheduled to hear arguments in July.

With little willingness to compromise from the GOP and a tight deadline that was not extended, the session ended with no new map and as a result the task was passed to Dick. The judge scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday, but it has been canceled following the Supreme Court’s decision.

 
We will only have racial equality when race is no longer a factor in government decisions. Our representatives represent people, not certain races. There are many more mixed race people now than 60 years ago. Let's start getting to what Dr. King envisioned.
 
In some ways, this makes sense as a process matter given the court's previous grant of cert in the Alabama case. I'm not sure that I buy it from a purely purcell principle perspective (need to stay process for new maps because of imminency of primaries).

In separate news, today was not the final opinion day for Scotus. (Tomorrow will be - and we'll get the WV major questions case, which I predict will be very fragmented, and the remain in mexico case, which i have no idea what will happen).

Today we got Torres, which says Congress can use its war power authority to authorize suits against states for veteran discrimination, which is probably Justice Breyer's final opinion (joined by CJ and Kav). I think this is worth a closer read, because it could be read as a bit of a smackdown to what i'll call hyper-federalism arguments.

And we also got Castro Nueva, the Indian crimes case. Court holds oklahoma state courts do have criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non indians against indians in indian country. Really outstanding and passionate dissent by Gorsuch.
 
We will only have racial equality when race is no longer a factor in government decisions. Our representatives represent people, not certain races. There are many more mixed race people now than 60 years ago. Let's start getting to what Dr. King envisioned.

That would be nice but it doesn't excuse drawing the districts to minimize the voting power of African Americans.
We need to just get rid of politicians drawing the lines period.

I still believe we need a nationwide proportional system. We could experiment with a Mixed Member proportional representation like the Bundestag.
 
We will only have racial equality when race is no longer a factor in government decisions. Our representatives represent people, not certain races. There are many more mixed race people now than 60 years ago. Let's start getting to what Dr. King envisioned.
Totally agree and it’s too bad that Louisiana Republicans clearly drew these along racial lines.
 
They do a great job at playing in the gray areas or doing something they know will eventually be overturned, but also know that it will take too long to stop in the short term which is often all that matters.
But it's also so transparent. Why have they been allowed to get away with it for the last 40 years or so? They're slowly destroying this once great nation by minority rule as Democrats throw up their hands.
 
But it's also so transparent. Why have they been allowed to get away with it for the last 40 years or so? They're slowly destroying this once great nation by minority rule as Democrats throw up their hands.
I honestly think R's spend a lot of time and effort on a few issues to keep the base at the ready but devote a lot of time on how to manipulate the system and stay in power. D's also do these things to a lesser extent while spending more time on issues that their base eats up but lack the focus on the system and power part. They have the advantage with the numbers but seem to think that's all that matters when it's been proven there are other things to do to win... and win again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
It appears to me that the trend is for black voters to gradually reregister as Republicans. Putting this detail together with the idea that race is the number one consideration in drawing voting districts when that was never envisioned leads me to conclude that the SCOTUS is correct in this case.

The crazy liberals do not own the blacks even from a voting perspective. Those folks seem to think that Blacks are too stupid to ever catch on to what is happening and will continue to happen in this weird evolution toward full-throated socialism.

Those black voters may not always cooperate with their Democratic handlers, so why not just draw up six districts that are reasonably coherent from a geographic perspective. Let's assume that voters living on the same street and in the same communities and so forth will collectively find candidates who represent their views.
 
Last edited:
That would be nice but it doesn't excuse drawing the districts to minimize the voting power of African Americans.
We need to just get rid of politicians drawing the lines period.

I still believe we need a nationwide proportional system. We could experiment with a Mixed Member proportional representation like the Bundestag.
I think the question here is actually a little more subtle. Obviously, the fewer the number of majority-minority districts that you draw, the greater the potential to minimize minority representation. I don't know all the ins and outs of the VRA, but in some ways, I might be tempted to rephrase the question in AL and LA as the degree to which a state has to maximize it.
 
It appears to me that the trend is for black voters to gradually reregister as Republicans. Putting this detail together with the idea that race is the number one consideration in drawing voting districts when that was never envisioned leads me to conclude that the SCOTUS is correct in this case.

The crazy liberals do not own the blacks even from a voting perspective. Those folks seem to think that Blacks are too stupid to ever catch on to what is happening and will continue to happen in this weird evolution toward full-throated socialism.

Those black voters may not always cooperate with their Democratic handlers, so why not just draw up six districts that are reasonably coherent from a geographic perspective. Let's assume that voters living on the same street and in the same communities and so forth will find candidates who represent their views.
While I dont think it's much of a trend, if my recollection is correct, one of the relevant factors in whether to create a majority-minority district is the degree to which the minority bloc tends to vote coherently as a bloc. Obviously, we're nowhere near the point in registration trends where that's really at issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
The crazy liberals do not own the blacks even from a voting perspective. Those folks seem to think that Blacks are too stupid to ever catch on to what is happening and will continue to happen in this weird evolution toward full-throated socialism.
Pretty rich coming from the people that literally call blacks pawns of the Democratic Party. They ARE the Democratic Party. But you tell them, woke white savior!
 
In some ways, this makes sense as a process matter given the court's previous grant of cert in the Alabama case. I'm not sure that I buy it from a purely purcell principle perspective (need to stay process for new maps because of imminency of primaries).

In separate news, today was not the final opinion day for Scotus. (Tomorrow will be - and we'll get the WV major questions case, which I predict will be very fragmented, and the remain in mexico case, which i have no idea what will happen).

Today we got Torres, which says Congress can use its war power authority to authorize suits against states for veteran discrimination, which is probably Justice Breyer's final opinion (joined by CJ and Kav). I think this is worth a closer read, because it could be read as a bit of a smackdown to what i'll call hyper-federalism arguments.

And we also got Castro Nueva, the Indian crimes case. Court holds oklahoma state courts do have criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non indians against indians in indian country. Really outstanding and passionate dissent by Gorsuch.
The one where they reversed their own decision from just 2 years ago because ACB was added to the court?
 
The one where they reversed their own decision from just 2 years ago because ACB was added to the court?
Gorsuch sides with the libs:


A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with officials in Oklahoma, limiting the reach of a 2020 decision that reclassified a large swath of the state as Indian land and disrupted criminal prosecutions.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said state officials have the authority to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Native Americans on Indian land.
“The Court’s precedents establish that Indian country is part of a State’s territory and that, unless preempted, States have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett.

Two years ago, the court said about 43 percent of Oklahoma, including the city of Tulsa, remains an American Indian reservation. That decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who dissented from Wednesday’s ruling, prevented state law enforcement from prosecuting Native Americans who commit crimes on Indian land.
‘Complete, dysfunctional chaos’: Oklahoma reels after Supreme Court ruling on Indian tribes
In his dissent Wednesday, Gorsuch said that the majority had misread history and that tribes retain their authority unless Congress intervenes.

“Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom,” wrote Gorsuch, who was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“Tribes are not private organizations within state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds … Tribal sovereignty means that the criminal laws of the States ‘can have no force’ on tribal members within tribal bounds unless and until Congress clearly ordains otherwise.”

The case involved the state prosecution of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American, who was convicted of severely neglecting his 5-year-old disabled stepdaughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Castro-Huerta appealed his 35-year sentence, saying in part that the state did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was Native American and the alleged crime took place in Indian territory.


While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued two related opinions that greatly increased the span of Indian country in Oklahoma and held that the state lacked authority to prosecute a Native American who had committed a crime in Indian country against a fellow Native American.
Oklahoma told the court that the shift to tribal and federal court after the 2020 ruling had forced the state to drop some prosecutions and some victims to go through second trials. Castro-Huerta subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court and accepted a seven-year sentence.

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) called the ruling Wednesday a “pivotal moment” that would allow the state to prosecute non-Native Americans and to “protect Native victims.”
“Justice has been delayed and denied to thousands of Native victims in our state for no reason other than their race. Now Oklahoma law enforcement can help uphold and enforce the law equally, as we have done for over a century,” Stitt said in a statement.


In a statement, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation said the Wednesday ruling is “an alarming step backward for justice on our reservation in cases where non-Native criminals commit crimes against Native people.”
“This will have a ripple effect throughout Indian Country across the United States,” the tribe said, adding that “public safety would be better served by expanding Tribal authority to prosecute any crime committed by any offender within our reservation boundaries rather than empowering entities that have demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety on Indian lands.”



 
That would be nice but it doesn't excuse drawing the districts to minimize the voting power of African Americans.
We need to just get rid of politicians drawing the lines period.

I still believe we need a nationwide proportional system. We could experiment with a Mixed Member proportional representation like the Bundestag.
I don't think you get it, if these proportional maps didn't have enough black districts, the left would complain about that as well.

Please stop trying to kid yourselves, this has nothing to do with the race of the district. Blacks vote about 95% for democrats so this is purely a way to guarantee a certain number of democratic seats, hiding behind race is simply a good way to garner sympathy.
 
The one where they reversed their own decision from just 2 years ago because ACB was added to the court?
Well, that's not correct. In McGirt, the Court ruled that eastern oklahoma is still indian country, and that the major crimes act precludes state criminal jurisdiction over indians for major crimes. Castro Nueva did not change either of those holdings. instead, it held that states may prosecute non-Indians for crimes against indians in indian country. Now, don't get me wrong, I happen to prefer justice Gorsuch's take on the issue, but today's decision did not reverse Mcgirt, or even purport to. But, nice try though.
 
Well, that's not correct. In McGirt, the Court ruled that eastern oklahoma is still indian country, and that the major crimes act precludes state criminal jurisdiction over indians for major crimes. Castro Nueva did not change either of those holdings. instead, it held that states may prosecute non-Indians for crimes against indians in indian country. Now, don't get me wrong, I happen to prefer justice Gorsuch's take on the issue, but today's decision did not reverse Mcgirt, or even purport to. But, nice try though.
Really? Should I believe you or the Scotusblog? I think I'll go with the latter.


"On Thursday, the Court reversed the presumption against state jurisdiction, holding that unless Congress acts to preempt state jurisdiction, states can prosecute non-Indians for all crimes committed in Indian country."
 
That would be nice but it doesn't excuse drawing the districts to minimize the voting power of African Americans.
We need to just get rid of politicians drawing the lines period.

I still believe we need a nationwide proportional system. We could experiment with a Mixed Member proportional representation like the Bundestag.
A district map does not minimize any person's voting power.
 
Really? Should I believe you or the Scotusblog? I think I'll go with the latter.


"On Thursday, the Court reversed the presumption against state jurisdiction, holding that unless Congress acts to preempt state jurisdiction, states can prosecute non-Indians for all crimes committed in Indian country."
the presumption that is being referred to, of course, being a presumption of dual federal/tribal jurisdiction established in 1832 in Worchester v. Georgia. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the court has turned over since then. McGirt still is good law as to its factual scenario (major crime committed by indian defendant in indian country), because congress through the major crimes act rebuts the "new" presumption of tripartite federal/state/tribal jurisdiction by reserving jurisdiction for major offenses against indians specifically for federal and tribal courts.

So yes, you should believe me. Or, at least read the opinions like I did.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you get it, if these proportional maps didn't have enough black districts, the left would complain about that as well.

Please stop trying to kid yourselves, this has nothing to do with the race of the district. Blacks vote about 95% for democrats so this is purely a way to guarantee a certain number of democratic seats, hiding behind race is simply a good way to garner sympathy.
Helluva stretch as usual.
 
ADVERTISEMENT