The Louisiana-based congressional redistricting case, Callais v. Louisiana, was argued for a second time this past Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court. It is always interesting to me when Louisiana has a case before the Supreme Court.
The case was first argued in March and centered on whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map—which added a second majority-Black district— amounts to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The outcome could determine how states nationwide apply the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in future redistricting cycles. The Court delayed ruling and ordered the parties to submit new legal briefs addressing whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) violates the 14th Amendment (equal protection) or 15th Amendment (the right to vote may not be prohibited based on race) to the Constitution.
Although the questions the Justices ask during oral argument may very well not be indicative of how they ultimately rule in a case, I still find their questions insightful.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s questions indicated that the 1965 Voting Rights law may not have been intended to last forever and, instead, “sunset” at some point. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questions reflected the same concern. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interjected that because the VRA is derived from the 15th Amendment, “it does not have a time limit.” It was an interesting point although I don’t think it is legally correct.
Louisiana’s Solicitor General, Ben Aguiñaga, arguing for Louisiana, urged the Supreme Court to prohibit the use of race as a factor in redistricting. “We are 50 years removed” from the original use of these race-based factors, he argued, and they “have placed states in impossible situations, where the only sure (thing) is more racial discrimination for more decades.” He contended that the racial considerations required under VRA are tantamount to a system of “government-mandated racial balancing” and urged them to be rejected outright.
He then took some sharp questioning from Justice Jackson who asked him whether, in Louisiana’s view, identifying and remedying racial discrimination is a “compelling interest.” “If I’m right that Section 2 is about identifying the problem and requiring some remedy, I don’t understand why your answer to Justice Kagan’s question about, ‘Is this a compelling state interest,’ would be ‘no,’” Jackson said. “The answer is obviously yes,” Jackson said. “You have an interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool. Whether you go too far in your remedy is another issue.” Justice Jackson then confounded me when she seemed to suggest that being a minority voter was similar to being disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In defending the Louisiana law and map as she is required to do, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill originally argued that the map adding the 2nd minority district could stand legal muster. However, when the Supreme Court requested that the parties address specifically how the 14th and 15th Amendments affect the VRA, the state took the position that race-based redistricting is unconstitutional.
This rehearing indicates to me that the Court wants to take another look at the potential inconsistency that exists between the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of racial gerrymandering.
The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution requires that our laws apply equally to everyone and prevents governments from discriminating against different groups, particularly based upon their race. However, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was designed to enforce the 15th Amendment—which guarantees the right to vote regardless of race or color—prohibits voting practices that result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race. This includes practices that “dilute” minority voting strength.These two legal principles are directly in conflict. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a statute, and no statute trumps the Constitution so the VRA could fall to the constitutional mandate of equal protection in the 14th Amendment. If the VRA is struck down, redistricting across the nation will be affected.
The Supreme Court should confirm the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and end the Voting Rights Act requirement of racial discrimination. This would honor and adhere to the principle inherent in Dr. Martin Luther King’s “dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character …”
Shreveport attorney, Royal Alexander, worked in D.C. in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 8 years for two different Members of Congress from Louisiana.