The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed its recent landmark ruling striking down Louisiana’s congressional map to take effect immediately, as Republican officials move quickly to redraw district lines ahead of this year’s elections, prompting a sharp exchange between two justices.
In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the court found the state’s U.S. House map — which included two majority-black districts held by Democrats — to be unconstitutional. State officials responded by suspending House primaries scheduled for this month and beginning efforts to draft a new map.
Voters who initially challenged the map had asked the justices to accelerate the typical 32-day period between a ruling and its formal transmission to a lower court, a request the Supreme Court ultimately granted.
They wrote that “time is … of the essence” with elections fast approaching, and said the dispute should be returned to a lower court so it can “oversee an orderly process” to revise Louisiana’s congressional maps, CBS News reported.
On Monday, the high court approved the request, stating that the typical 32-day wait period is “subject to adjustment” by the justices. Not surprisingly, the high court’s DEI justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, calling the 8-1 ruling “unwarranted and unwise.”
Jackson said the court should “stay on the sidelines” to “avoid the appearance of partiality,” pointing to the court’s traditional reluctance to make changes right before an election. “And just like that, those principles give way to power,” she wrote, failing to noted that in this case, Louisiana’s current congressional maps have been ruled unconstitutional and therefore cannot be sustained.
Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion in the Callais case, strongly pushed back in a concurrence that was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Alito described Jackson’s concerns about potential bias as “baseless and insulting.” He argued that allowing Louisiana’s old maps to remain in effect could actually create an appearance of partiality by “running out the clock.” Additionally, he stated that her suggestion that the court was abandoning its principles was “groundless and utterly irresponsible.”
“What principle has the Court violated?” he wrote. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”
Alito argued that Jackson essentially advocated for Louisiana to use a congressional map that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Jackson denied all of that, responding in a footnote that her “preference is for the Court to stay out of all this, and the best way to do that is to stick with our default procedures.”
The tension between the two justices underscores the significant implications of the Callais decision, which could have far-reaching effects beyond Louisiana. Two other states—Tennessee and Alabama—have initiated last-minute redistricting efforts that may lead to a decrease in Democratic representation.
The decision has narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has been a crucial tool for challenging congressional maps that are perceived as racially discriminatory.
In the past, Southern states have often had to draw majority-minority districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and address allegations that their congressional maps unlawfully diluted minority votes. But in the court’s majority opinion, Alito wrote that congressional maps only violate the Voting Rights Act when there is a “strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
Districts that are drawn specifically to give undue influence and preference to a particular ethnic group or race violate the Constitution’s equal protection clauses, the opinion noted further.
Leave a Reply