WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices indicated Wednesday that they would limit the use of race to determine the boundaries of congressional districts — a move that could dramatically shake up biennial House elections for decades to come.
The court heard a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map by the Trump administration and state officials, who argued that the court-ordered creation of a second majority-black district violated the 14th Amendment by prioritizing racial composition in its boundaries.
“This Court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time — sometimes for a long period of time, decades, in some cases — but that they should not be indefinite and should [have an] endpoint,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh contended.
The Pelican State’s original map following the 2020 census included only one majority-black district, but lower courts ordered officials back to the drawing board, saying the cartographers violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by unlawfully diluting minority votes.
About one-third of Louisiana residents are African-American and the state’s only two Democratic lawmakers in Congress were elected from the majority-black districts.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s congressional map, with Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court’s three liberals to find that the map violated the Voting Rights Act.
The justices had taken up the Louisiana case during their most recent term, but ordered the case reargued to consider the 14th and 15th Amendments, which stipulate that states cannot deny citizens equal protection under the law nor abridge their rights on the basis of race.
“If the objective is simply to maximize the number of representatives of a particular party,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked at one point, “that’s seeking a partisan advantage, it is not seeking a racial advantage, isn’t that right?”
Janai Nelson, arguing on behalf of a group of black voters in support of a second majority black district, countered that if “race is used as a means to seek the partisan advantage, then that is unconstitutional.”
Meanwhile, principal deputy solicitor general Hashim Mooppan, arguing against the Louisiana map, stated: “If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district, none.
“And so what is happening here is, their argument is, ‘Because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district.’ If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get the same.”
The court’s liberals sought to draw attention to the history of the Voting Rights Act dating back to the civil rights movement, with Justice Elena Kagan saying that a court only orders the redrawing of districts if they find “a specific identified, proved violation of law.”
“We’ve said that the only actionable part that’s intentional if [race] predominates, but race is always a part of these decisions,” added Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “and my colleagues are trying to tease it out in this intellectual way that doesn’t deal with the fact that race is used to help people.”
A decision striking down the Louisiana map could have major effects on House district lines in other states like Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has vowed to redraw congressional maps without regard for racial configurations.
“I think the results would be pretty catastrophic,” Nelson told the justices when asked what would happen if the high court gets rid of race-based redistricting. “If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA [Voting Rights Act] opportunity district.
“We only have the diversity that we see across the South, for example, because of litigation that led to the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act.”
A decision is expected by June of next year.
