logo
Louisiana is ‘tired' of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway.

Louisiana is ‘tired' of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway.

Yahoo24-03-2025

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's congressional districts that could have nationwide implications for how states consider race as they draw new lines.
And given the GOP's narrow majority, the high court's decision could be a factor that helps decide control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 election.
The state's briefing at the Supreme Court drips with exasperation: Louisiana was, at first, required by a federal court in 2022 to create a second majority Black district out of the state's six total districts. A group of self-described 'non-African American voters' then sued in 2024, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands.
'Louisiana is tired,' state officials told the Supreme Court in December. 'Midway through this decade, neither Louisiana nor its citizens know what congressional map they can call home.'
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, tees up a series of important questions that deal with race and redistricting. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states do not dilute the power of minority voters, a response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans.
And yet the equal protection clause demands that a state cannot draw a map based on race, even if those efforts are intended to ensure compliance with federal law.
Because of that inherent tension, the Supreme Court has tended to give some 'breathing room' to states in drawing their maps. The central question of the case is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have.
Louisiana officials have suggested that the Supreme Court might want to use the case to take federal courts out of the business of deciding racial gerrymanders altogether, just as it withdrew from fights over political gerrymanders in a 2019 decision. But a group of Black plaintiffs that challenged the state's original map are, understandably, opposed to that idea because it would severely limit their ability to challenge future discriminatory maps.
'We would not be at all pleased with that outcome,' said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, which is representing the minority plaintiffs who initially sued. 'It would set a very bad precedent going forward and make it very difficult for civil rights groups, minority voters to bring claims in the future.'
The Supreme Court has, in recent years, slowly chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act. But in a stunning decision in 2023, the court appeared to bolster a key provision of the VRA by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the holding.
The new district at issue in the case slashes diagonally from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast for some 250 miles to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines.
The non-African American voters slammed the district as a 'sinuous and jagged second majority Black district' that they told the Supreme Court is 'based on racial stereotypes, racially 'balkanizing' a 250-mile swath of Louisiana.'
'Why, in the 2020s, would Louisiana racially balkanize new areas of a State where Black population is flatlining, integration is succeeding, and the record lacks evidence of voting harms to Black voters?' the plaintiffs asked.
Although Black residents make up roughly a third of Louisiana's population, the state had just one Black lawmaker in its six-member US House delegation prior to the initial court ruling that led to a second Black-majority district.
Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, captured the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. In raw political terms, the Supreme Court's decision could leave Fields in power – or it could force a redrawing of the maps before the 2026 election.
The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but that urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'
CNN's Tierney Sneed and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs

President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Poll shows low-profile New York City comptroller race narrowing in the home stretch
Poll shows low-profile New York City comptroller race narrowing in the home stretch

Politico

time19 minutes ago

  • Politico

Poll shows low-profile New York City comptroller race narrowing in the home stretch

NEW YORK — A new poll shows the race for New York City comptroller tightening, with Justin Brannan narrowing the gap in a contest still led by Mark Levine. And with less than two weeks until the Democratic primary, nearly half of New Yorkers remain undecided in the race to be the city's top fiscal watchdog, according to the poll Brannan's team commissioned and shared in full with POLITICO. It was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and queried 573 likely primary voters between June 6 and 7, with a 4.1 percent margin of error. Levine, the Manhattan borough president, led Brannan — the City Council finance committee chair — 30 percent to 19 percent among likely Democratic voters, according to the poll. That same survey showed state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani leapfrogging Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary. The 11-point gap was smaller than a May 27 survey from Honan Strategy Group that had Levine at 38 percent and Brannan at 13 percent, a shift that left the Brooklyn lawmaker's team feeling bullish. Both surveys found 44 percent of likely voters undecided. 'A race that was once considered locked up is now anything but,' Brannan campaign adviser Alyssa Cass wrote in a campaign memo shared with POLITICO. 'As nearly half the electorate remains undecided, Brannan is the candidate with the most room to grow and the clearest path to an upset.' Brannan's team believes the tides will continue to shift in his favor. They cited the smaller gap that came after 10 days of going on air with a television ad along with a niche stat from their poll: Of voters who had seen Brannan's ads, they preferred him 40 percent to 37 percent. Those viewers, however, made up a small slice of the electorate at 23 percent. And it was unclear how many of those people knew of Levine or his campaign. Levine's camp countered that the polls have consistently shown him ahead of Brannan by double digits. And they touted the endorsement Wednesday night of a major municipal labor group. 'Mark has all the momentum in this race. We just earned the endorsement of the United Federation of Teachers, representing hundreds of thousands of NYC public school educators — adding to the 180-plus elected officials, faith leaders, labor unions and community groups backing our campaign,' Campaign Manager Matt Rubin said in a statement. 'Right now, we're focused on connecting with New Yorkers where they are — on the streets, at subway stops and at their doors.' A person on Levine's team also took issue with the survey methodology, suggesting it over sampled Brannan's home borough of Brooklyn — especially with affluent voters — and under sampled Black voters Levine is doing better with. The Public Policy Polling showed few New Yorkers have barely tuned into the contest: More than half of those surveyed had no opinion about the favorability of the two candidates, and around half of the likely Democratic primary voters had not seen an ad for either. Brannan and Levine were the only two comptroller candidates to qualify for a pair of televised debates, which mainly showcased how little they differ on policy. During their first meeting, they engaged in several back-and-forths over President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but had a conspicuous aversion to talking about Andrew Cuomo, who at the time had been leading the mayoral Democratic primary in every poll.

Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022
Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022

The federal courthouse in Tampa on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Day Three of the federal lawsuit alleging that a Tampa Bay area state Senate district was racially gerrymandered focused in part on how that district was created in 2022. The suit, filed by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University on behalf of three residents of Tampa and St. Petersburg, alleges the Legislature packed Black voters into District 16 to reduce their influence in nearby District 18, in violation of their equal-protection rights. Democrat Darryl Rouson serves in SD 16, while Republican Nick DiCeglie is the incumbent in SD 18. The defendants are Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, and their attorneys began their defense on Wednesday, bringing Jay Ferrin back to the witness stand in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Ferrin is now a senior adviser to the Florida Senate, but he served as staff director of the Florida Senate Committee on Reapportionment in the fall of 2021, when the districts lines were created. He discussed how he and his staff went about drawing up the Senate districts that year and the guidelines they followed. The reapportionment process beginning that fall was taking place under the guidance of Ray Rodrigues, who chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee. Defense attorneys aired several Florida Channel video excerpts on Wednesday showing Rodrigues explaining how 'hard lessons were learned' following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 2015 to throw out the GOP-controlled Legislature's maps after deeming them unlawful under the Fair Districts constitutional amendments adopted by voters in 2010. Rodrigues was insistent that he wanted the 2022 Legislature to conduct itself in such a fashion that the courts would not reject the maps lawmakers would produce. 'This map will withstand a court challenge,' Rodrigues declared on the floor of the Senate. That's what the trial taking place this week will ultimately determine. Ferrin testified that, after his staff created other Senate districts in the Tampa Bay area, there remained about 100,000 residents in Pinellas County who would have to be inserted into another Senate district. (With the population of Florida in 2021 at 21.5 million people, Ferrin said, his staff were tasked to draw approximately 538,438 voters into each of the 40 Senate districts). The resultant SD 16, which encompasses parts of St. Petersburg and Hillsborough County, is similar to the 'benchmark' map created in 2015 that was then known as Senate District 19. Ferrin denied that he was instructed to maintain that same configuration. He also said that under the rules promulgated by Rodrigues, he and his fellow staffers could speak about any new maps only with either the Senate's general counsel or other Senate members — and not the general public. He was not supposed to review public submissions. Florida senators were allowed to propose amendments during the reapportionment process, to add their own maps. Rodrigues and Democratic Sen. Audrey Gibson had filed such amendments, Ferrin said, but no senator had asked him to directly to create any Senate maps. ACLU attorney Nicholas Warren said at the beginning of the morning that he had sought to depose Rodrigues and fellow Republican and committee member Danny Burgess before the trial, but both had asserted legislative privilege, which shields them having to testify in certain lawsuits. In the afternoon, the defense called two expert witnesses who criticized the expert witness testimony and voting analysis that came from the plaintiffs on Tuesday. Steven Voss is a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. When asked to break down the political partisanship of the Tampa Bay area, he included four counties that make up the Tampa Bay metropolitan statistical area — Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk and Hernando. Based on population, he said, five Senate districts could be folded into the area, and that three historically were reliably Republican while two would favor Democrats. Currently, that breakdown is four Republican districts and one Democratic — with Senate District 14, which Voss said historically favored Democrats, going to the GOP in 2022. Voss took aim at the alternative voting maps produced for the ACLU by Penn State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan. Those maps showed that a district could have been fairly drawn up exclusively in Hillsborough County while still protecting Tier-1 standards there and in Pinellas County. (That involves the Florida Constitution's Fair District Amendment, which says that districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice). Voss said that the result of McCartan's work was that he was 'cracking and packing' voters in his maps to ultimately help Democrats at the voting booth. Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, also testified for the defense. He praised the composition of the Senate maps passed by the Legislature in 2022, saying it was 'pretty incompetent racial gerrymandering, if that's what's going on.' The trial is expected to conclude on Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store