Supreme Court Considers Brief on Majority Districts in Louisiana Case

This past Friday, the Supreme Court directed parties involved in the ongoing case of Louisiana vs. Frey to submit a brief concerning the constitutionality of the obligations surrounding “majority” districts. This development follows the Court’s earlier decision to abstain from ruling on the matter this year.

The case, brought by various “non-African American voters,” questions the constitutionality of a district map produced by the state legislature. This legal challenge argues that the new district design, deemed a “racial gerrymander of textbooks,” violates the Voting Rights Act.

In a related brief filed by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall for 13 Republican-led states, the argument surfaced that the revised Louisiana map exemplifies unacceptable gerrymandering. The brief warned that extreme interpretations of section §2 cannot justify racial classifications or mandates.

Despite ongoing debates, Louisiana’s position appears to hinge on whether current concepts of voting rights are unconstitutional or, perhaps more troubling, necessitate racial gerrymandering.

“I believe the court was right; however, what they said feels etched in stone,” remarked Louisiana lawyer Ben Aginiga during oral arguments in March. “It’s the law we are bound to follow, which led us to redesign District 6.”

Before the case reached this point, Caren Short, the legal director of the Federation of Women Voters, expressed her lack of concern regarding the Voting Rights Act’s influence on the outcome. She noted that the Supreme Court seemed to firmly support Section 2 of the Act, referencing their decision in Allen v. Milligan as “quite robust.”

However, the Court’s request for further briefing suggests that their final ruling may diverge significantly from earlier expectations.

Judge Clarence Thomas voiced his disagreement with the Court’s decision to revisit the case. He noted that in his view, section §2 requires racial districting only when it closely aligns with the intended protection against racism.

He further indicated that mere violations of §2 should not warrant race-based remedies, suggesting a broader implication for the power to address issues related to racial gerrymandering.

After the Court’s directive for supplementary briefs, election law expert Rick Hayes cautioned that the stakes are considerable. He remarked, “This Court is more conservative than the one that undermined another fundamental aspect of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 in Shelby County.” He further emphasized that this represents a troubling shift against the protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act.

Currently, Alabama Congressional Democrats Terry Sewell and Shomali hold representation in districts drawn by the court after the state legislature proposed a map that failed to meet legal standards.

A three-judge panel in May, concerning Alabama’s redistricting case, stated they could only interpret the state legislature’s 2023 proposal as an intentional attempt to dilute the voting power of Black Alabamians, failing to comply with court mandates.

The following month, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen and two Republican legislators decided to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.