Latest news with #ShellyDick
CBS News
22-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Louisiana's congressional map returns to Supreme Court to face review
Washington — The Supreme Court is set to consider Monday whether to leave in place Louisiana's congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts and was used in the 2024 elections. The dispute is the latest involving claims of racial gerrymandering and the drawing of political districts to land before the high court following the re-crafting of voting boundaries after the decennial census. In this case, the plaintiffs, who identify themselves as non-African American Louisiana residents, say the state relied too heavily on race when drawing a second majority-Black district for the state's congressional map. The Supreme Court has in recent years weakened the Voting Rights Act, starting with the landmark 2013 decision that gutted the law's preclearance requirement. Before that decision, certain states and localities — mostly Southern — with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices were required to submit changes in election law to the Justice Department for approval before they could be implemented. The court ruled that the formula used by the Voting Rights Act to determine what states and localities were subject to Section 5 was unconstitutional because it was based on electoral conditions in the 1960s and 1970s, rather than on contemporary circumstances, and thus imposed unequal burdens on some states without sufficient justifying evidence. But in a surprising decision in 2023, the high court declined an invitation to reshape Section 2 of the landmark voting law and invalidated Alabama's congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 Census. The latest case before the court involves Louisiana's congressional map, which was redrawn last year to add a second majority-Black district to comply with Section 2, but then was found to be a racial gerrymander that violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. "What we're looking at is the decision on how you draw districts to comply with the VRA and at the same time, not violate the 14th Amendment's ban on drawing districts based on race, where race is used excessively," Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School who is an expert in redistricting, said. The dispute, he said, "is a conflict of different issues coming to us at a time when the court is highly politicized." The case has ping-ponged around the federal courts, including twice at the Supreme Court, since 2022, when a federal district court in Baton Rouge issued the first decision in this long-running dispute. The judge, Shelly Dick, found the original map of Louisiana's seven congressional districts that was enacted by the legislature in February 2022 likely violated Section 2 because it diluted Black voting strength. That initial map from the GOP-led legislature had one majority-Black district. African-Americans make up nearly one-third of Louisiana's population . The judge blocked the state from conducting congressional elections under those lines and ordered the state to put in place a remedial plan with two majority-Black House districts. A federal appeals court then upheld that injunction and set a deadline for Louisiana to draw the new voting lines. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who took office in January 2024, called the legislature into special session to draw a new congressional map, with the understanding from state lawmakers that two of its seven districts had to be majority-Black. The plan adopted reconfigured Louisiana's 6th Congressional District to adhere to the district court's order and bring the map into compliance with the Voting Rights Act, state officials said. But Louisiana state lawmakers said they had another goal: to protect certain Republican incumbents, namely House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Julia Letlow, the only woman in the state's congressional delegation and a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, they said. It did that at the expense of Garrett Graves, a Republican who represented District 6 and was at risk of losing his seat because of the redrawn lines. The new district has a Black voting age population of roughly 51%. It stretches from Shreveport, in Louisiana's northwest corner, to Baton Rouge, in the southeast, and connects predominantly Black populations from Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge. Shortly after the new redistricting plan was adopted, a group of 12 self-described "non-African-American voters" sued the state and alleged that the redrawn District 6 was a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A divided three-judge district court panel in Shreveport found that the legislature predominantly considered race when it crafted the new voting lines and blocked the state from using the map in any election. But Louisiana lawmakers, along with a group of Black voters and nonprofits who challenged the original map from 2022, asked the Supreme Court to intervene and allow the state to use the plan for the 2024 elections. The Supreme Court granted the state and Black voters' emergency relief , and the November House elections were held using the redrawn map. Graves opted not to seek reelection, and Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat who is Black, won the race for District 6. The high court agreed to take up the case in November. "The court has faced this issue several times before," Wice said. "But here we have a uniquely different case because we're looking at Louisiana trying to do three things." The first is to comply with the courts, the second is to draw a second minority district that would allow Black voters to elect their preferred candidate, and the third is to satisfy political demands to keep certain members of Congress in office, he said. In filings with the Supreme Court, Louisiana officials argue that the non-Black voters who challenged the new congressional map did not have the legal right to sue, a concept known as standing, because they failed to show how they were harmed by the alleged violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. But as to the merits of the case, the state and voters said race was not the sole factor involved in how the map was redrawn. Instead, Louisiana lawmakers said they had two criteria: that District 6 be majority-Black and that the broader congressional map protect Republican incumbents. The state said the blame for its considerations of race when drawing the new map lies with the district court, since it said the remedial redistricting plan had to have two majority-Black districts to comply with the federal voting rights law. "Having forced the state into adopting a second majority-Black district, the federal judiciary cannot wash its hands of the matter now and point at the legislature," Louisiana officials said. "If a bank robber holds a gun to a teller's head, no one would say that the teller's emptying the cash drawer was self-motivated. Just so here." In their filings, Louisiana officials asked the Supreme Court to provide a "clear articulation" of what voting map would survive review under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and how states can avoid "endless litigation" that follows every Census moving forward. They also suggested that the Supreme Court rule that racial gerrymandering claims shouldn't be decided by the courts at all and should instead be left to the political branches. The proposal, which Louisiana officials said "would be the best outcome for everyone," reflects a concurring opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last year in a redistricting case from South Carolina . "Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges," Thomas wrote. "There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches." No other justice joined Thomas' opinion. But whether any other of the other justices, namely the members of its conservative wing, come out in agreement with Thomas in this case remains an open question. Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said during a call with reporters that if at least four other justices embrace Thomas' position, it would set a bad precedent going forward. "It would make it very difficult for civil rights groups, minority voters, to bring claims in the future to raise concerns that state legislatures are using race in a way that is intended not to help Black voters have more opportunities to elect candidates of choice, or voters of color to have opportunities to elect candidates of choice, but to essentially manipulate race in such a way that would deprive voters," she said. On the other side, the group of 12 non-African-American voters argued that the state set a "racial quota" of two majority-Black districts out of the state's seven House seats. District 6, they argued in Supreme Court filings, is a "sinuous and jagged second majority-Black district based on racial stereotypes, racially 'balkanizing' a 250-mile swath of Louisiana, from the far Northwest near Texas, down to [East Baton Rouge] near the Mississippi River's mouth." They also rejected the state's suggestion that the drawing of district lines be solely left to the political branches. "The state's 'odious' stereotyping of citizens based on race (even to the 'shame' of many legislators and to Republicans' political detriment) and its tenacious efforts to freeze the gerrymander for the 2024 election show why the political process is insufficient to protect citizens against invidious discrimination," the voters said. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Yahoo
Louisiana judge stops use of nitrogen hypoxia for executions
SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS) – A victory for opponents of Louisiana's decision to execute a man using nitrogen hypoxia as a federal judge grants their Eighth Amendment argument that gassing is cruel and unusual punishment. Louisiana Chief District Judge Shelly Dick granted a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by attorneys for Jesse Hoffman who is scheduled to be executed by the state on March 18. Hoffman's argument is not an attempt to deny guilt or prevent the state from executing him, it questions the state's chosen manner of execution and what Hoffman's attorneys call secrecy in the state's explanation of execution protocol. He is asking that his execution be carried out by firing squad or a life-ending cocktail known as DDMAPh. More Louisiana News The argument that was granted is based on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. In her explanation Judge Dick said, 'The Court finds that Plaintiff has clearly shown a substantial likelihood that (1) making the condemned breath pure nitrogen until dead cruelly superadds pain and suffering to the execution when compared to firing squad; (2) firing squad is 'feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s] a substantial risk of severe pain;' and (3) that the State has failed to adopt firing squad as a method of execution without a legitimate penological reason.' The judge noted that DDMAPh, although used in compassionate end of life care or assisted suicide, is not easily accessible for executions carried out by the state, and Louisiana has struggled to secure it previously. Ultimately the judge believed that Hoffman's claims that nitrogen hypoxia superadds psychological pain, suffering, and terror to his execution when compared to execution by firing squad. Saying the state had no legitimate reason related to the state's penal system for not adopting, as the choice of which execution method the state utilizes is a decision left up to state's Director of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC). 'The public has an interest in knowing how its government operates. The obfuscation of the protocol by the State is deleterious to the public's interest. The United States Constitution is simply the government's promises to its citizens. The Eighth Amendment is the government's assurance that no citizen will be punished by means that are cruel and unusual. Courts are the arbiter of whether the government honors this promise to her people. It is in the best interests of the public to examine this newly proposed method of execution on a fully developed record. The public has paramount interest in a legal process that enables thoughtful and well-informed deliberations, particularly when the ultimate fundamental right, the right to life, is placed in the government's hands. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted.' Chief District Judge Shelly Dick Read Judge Dick's ruling here Hoffman-PI-OrderDownload Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said, 'We disagree with the district court's decision and will immediately appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court.' Those who oppose Louisiana using nitrogen gas for state executions have argued that the cruel and unusual aspect is why it is prohibited as a method of euthanasia for companion animals in 48 states. Priest and Death Row Spiritual Advisor Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood was vocal about Hoffman's execution and executions in Alabama, the only other state that uses nitrogen hypoxia. In a statement Hood said, 'Lucifer didn't win today. Judge Shelly Dick has heard the cries of those of us who have actually witnessed a nitrogen hypoxia execution. Let there be no doubt, nitrogen hypoxia is one of the cruelest and most unusual forms of punishment to ever exist.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
