Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address.
Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin.
The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.'
The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year.
Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly.
'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law.
The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade.
The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands.
The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans.
And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible.
Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have.
Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all.
CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress members trying to see ICE detainees at MDC Brooklyn jail barred from entry
NEW YORK — Officials at MDC Brooklyn barred three Democrat members of Congress from conducting an oversight visit of the jail's ICE detention operation, sparking a brief lockdown that led to cancelled legal visits for inmates seeing their defense lawyers. The Congress members, Reps. Adriano Espaillat, Nydia Velazquez and Dan Goldman, showed up at the notorious Sunset Park jail Wednesday morning, but were blocked at the door, then were briefly trapped between the iron gate in front of the jail and its entrance doors. Inside, about 20 defense attorneys visiting their clients abruptly had those visits cut short, multiple lawyers told the Daily News. Jail staff recalled those inmates back to their housing units, and wouldn't let their lawyers leave the MDC for about a half hour as the drama unfolded outside, the attorneys said. Those lawyers included Marc Agnifilo, who represents Sean 'Diddy' Combs and alleged healthcare CEO killer Luigi Mangione, both of whom are housed in MDC, sources said. Agnifilo did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday. 'We were trapped between the gate and the building,' Velazquez told The News. She said that the lawmakers entered the gate and approached the place's front door, and Espaillat asked a masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent outside to show his face. 'He [the agent] immediately jumped in front of the gate and locked us inside, and then went upstairs, climbed the steps for the federal building and locked the door so we could not get out to the street,' Velazquez said. 'We couldn't get into the building.' New York Immigration Coalition President Murad Awawdeh, who accompanied the lawmakers, said the ICE agent immediately confronted them, asking for ID, then triggered a lockdown and disappeared into the building. 'It was a circus that the federal prison bureau created,' he said. 'Why is the federal government going so far out of its way to prohibit anyone from seeing what's happening inside their facilities?' Eventually, an assistant to the warden came out, 'and he said what we knew he would say, that we have to request seven days in advance for a permit to allow us to go inside,' Velazquez said. That's against federal law, which gives Congress members the right to make unannounced visits, she said. Starting in June, MDC Brooklyn began holding more than 100 ICE detainees as part of an interagency agreement between ICE and and the Bureau of Prisons to use eight federal facilities across the country to hold immigrants ensnared in Donald Trump's mass deportation machine. 'Denying Members of Congress access to a federal detention facility is outrageous and unacceptable,' Espaillat said in a statement later Wednesday. 'MDC Brooklyn has a well-documented record of abuse. ICE should not be allowed to expand its reach through backdoor deals with federal prisons. This contract must be terminated now.' BOP spokeswoman Randilee Giamusso said Wednesday that the prison system would be happy to accommodate Congress member visits if they give advance notice. 'However, as a law enforcement entity, we must prioritize the safety of our staff, inmates and our facilities. We remain committed to working with our congressional partners,' Giamusso said. 'With proper notice, the BOP is happy to accommodate a request for a site visit from any congressional member.' Espaillat and several other Congress members sued the Trump administration last week, arguing that federal law specifically prohibits immigration detention facilities from requiring prior notice before members of Congress can make oversight visits. 'The Trump administration's lawless efforts to defy that constitutional authority are a gross abuse of power,' Goldman said, 'and we're taking them to court in defense of that principle and to find out what they're hiding.' _____
Fast Company
18 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump accuses banks of political discrimination. Here's what to know
The White House was preparing to act against banks for allegedly dropping customers for political reasons, as President Donald Trump said he believes that banks, including JPMorgan and Bank of America, had discriminated against him and his supporters. A draft of the executive order, which was reviewed by Reuters, instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices. The order could authorize monetary penalties or other disciplinary measures against violators. It is likely to be announced as early as this week, two industry sources said. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump's criticism adds pressure on America's largest lenders, but it also shows how the president's personal slights and business interests are getting reflected in the administration's policies — something that critics say raises issues of conflicts of interest. The sprawling Trump business empire has been placed into a trust, but it is still ultimately owned by the president. An executive order against the banks would come after Trump said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday that the country's top two lenders had previously rejected his deposits. Trump said, without providing evidence, that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged regulators to 'destroy Trump.' 'They did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.' 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he said. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash. 'I ended up going to small banks all over the place,' he said. 'I was putting $10 million here, $10 million there, did $5 million, $10 million, $12 million,' he said, without naming the lenders. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claims about his account. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' BofA also did not address Trump's specific claims. 'Reputational risk' issue During Biden's administration, regulators were able to scrutinize banks' decisions on the basis of reputational risks, a source familiar with the matter said. Lenders were under intense scrutiny and pressure to weigh reputational risks when dealing with Trump because of his legal woes, another source familiar with the situation said. JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back years, and it also banks a number of campaign accounts linked to Trump, the source said. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider reputational risk when examining banks, a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. 'What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships,' said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. 'Banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification.' BofA said it welcomed the administration's efforts to clarify the policies. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,' the bank said. Trump in January admonished the CEOs of JPMorgan and BofA for denying services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'Regulatory overreach' Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and overzealous bank supervisors can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. Lenders have held discussions around debanking and weighed scenarios around a potential order, the first source said. Banks are also hopeful the administration may change anti-money laundering laws that they say are outdated and burdensome, the source added.
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Adams Is Again Denied Matching Funds as Cuomo Lobbies Executives
Mayor Eric Adams of New York was again denied public matching funds for his re-election campaign on Wednesday, a major setback as he competes against former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to emerge as the strongest challenger to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee. The city's Campaign Finance Board said that Mr. Adams was not eligible for public funds because his campaign had provided 'incomplete and misleading' information, and the board believed that the campaign had violated the law. The board did not provide details about its findings, but said the decision was based on 'all of the available evidence, including but not limited to its own independent investigation.' Todd Shapiro, a spokesman for Mr. Adams's campaign, called the decision 'vague and unsubstantiated' as well as 'deeply concerning and potentially damaging.' 'We strongly disagree with the Campaign Finance Board's decision and reject both the tone and substance of its statement,' Mr. Shapiro said. The board denied Mr. Adams's request for public funds after he was indicted on federal corruption charges late last year. That decision prevented him from receiving millions of dollars under the city's program, which gives qualifying candidates an eight-for-one match of small-dollar donations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
