The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday that Louisiana’s 2024 redistricting was unconstitutional because its map was drawn based on race without meeting the extremely limited and strictly-defined legal justifications for race-based redistricting.
In its Louisiana v. Callais Et Al. ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an appeals court ruling that the state’s SB8, which redrew the congressional map to add a minority-majority district in 2024, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wednesday’s Supreme Court opinion ruled that Louisiana’s new congressional map is, indeed, an unconstitutional gerrymander.
The case began its path to the Supreme Court in 2022:
- In 2022, Louisiana redrew its congressional districts in the wake of the 2020 census, adding a district that was not a majority-black district.
- That same year, a federal judge ruled that the 2022 redistricting likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it did not add a majority-black district.
- The judge ordered Louisiana to redraw its map to include a majority-black district, which the state did in 2024.
- The new map was then challenged by a group of “non-African American” voters on the grounds that it was a racial gerrymander.
- A three-judge appeals court ruled that SB8, which created the new map, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Louisiana appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, resulting in Wednesday’s ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 2022 court decision forcing Louisiana to abandon its new map and create another that included an additional minority-black district was unjustified because, under the Voting Rights Act, discrimination takes place only if a minority district is eliminated – not because one isn’t added. Louisiana’s 2022 map left the number of minority districts unchanged.
As the decision explains, partisan political gerrymandering is allowed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but race-based gerrymandering is not:
“Properly understood, §2 thus does not intrude on States’ prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage. In short, §2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
Intentional use of race in drawing districts, which the Supreme Court rules that Louisiana practiced, is legal in only a few, extraordinary instances. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the Voting Rights Act does not provide a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts.
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled, Louisiana’s use of race to determine its districts was unconstitutional, as Justice Samuel Alito explained in his concurring opinion:
“[B]ecause the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
“[V]ast social change has occurred throughout the country” since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, Alito added, noting that it led to great strides in the ensuing decades, as “voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers.”
Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling opens the door for voters to file legal challenges to race-based gerrymandering in other states.
