Two weeks ago, the US Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case of Louisiana v Callais, which is centered on Louisiana’s Congressional Map. In 2023, the state was ordered to redraw its Congressional districts to include a 2nd majority-Black Congressional district; a move federal courts said was mandated by the Voting Rights Act. The legislature passed over several compact maps to instead pick the plan seen below. The violet-colored 6th district, the 2nd majority-Black seat, is the subject of the court case, with a group of voters suing over the district’s layout.
The lawsuits is about far more than the shape of any specific district, and trust me I am here to tell you how that district’s line are terrible. The case, however, also revolves heavily around the Voting Rights Act itself and the mandate of states to draw districts that unite minority communities and give them opportunities to elect candidates of their choice.
As the case has played out in the press, people have argued about how non-compact a district can be in order to balance the issue of racial representation. However, as this article will make clear, the 6th district did NOT have to look like that in order to be Black-majority. The ridiculous district shapes are entirely due to political games by the Republicans that run Louisiana and how they sought to adhere to court order while also playing favorites within their own caucus.
This article will lay out the politics, not race, that drove the ridiculous shape of the 6th district, and I will offer a much more compact map alternative. First, however, lets make sure everyone understands the actual role of the Voting Rights Act in this case and why its still important.
The Voting Rights Act vs Jim Crow
The Callais case revolves not only around the current Louisiana Congressional map, but also around the roll of the Voting Rights Act itself. The VRA, as its often known, has been a major factor in redistricting and election method lawsuits over the last four decades. Its importance as a piece of legislation cannot be overstated.
Combating Vote Denial
Originally passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act set up federal protections for voting rights; sweeping away many of the old Jim Crow restrictions placed on Black voters in the deep south. Throughout the course of the post-Reconstruction era, the southern states barred Black voters from the polls either with direct violence, intimidation, or legal blockades. Whites-only primaries, literacy tests, poll taxes, and limited registration hours were all used to stop Black citizens from registering or daring to vote. These were all examples of vote denial; a key practice that the VRA was designed to combat.
I have written several articles on Jim Crow era voter restrictions. These are largely centered around Florida, which was a firm Jim Crow state. They give a broad understanding of the life under segregation and repression.
The Betrayal of Florida’s freed slaves - An article looking at how reconstruction in Florida sought to limit Black voting power and how ex-confederates eventually took control of the state and began Jim Crow
Black Registration in the 1940s - A look at the Florida registration efforts of Harry T. Moore. This examines how Florida began to allow Black registration in the 1940s, but it varied wildly by county, with some violently resisting any efforts. Moore and his wife were eventually killed by the KKK.
The Voting Rights Act in Florida - Breaking down how the 1965 Voting Rights Act finally sparked major registration drives in counties that had resisted efforts before. Florida was not as repressive as Alabama or Mississippi, and this article delves into its own county-by-county differences.
Jim Crow and the move of Black voters to Democrats - A detailed look at the horror of Jim Crow and the period of the 1940s to 1960s that saw shifting voting patterns as Democrats began to embrace civil rights and Republicans moved in the opposite direction.
While the VRA and lawsuits that stemmed from it eventually secured much stronger rights for voters to register and cast ballots, the work of the law was far from wrapped up.
Redistricting and Vote Dilution
The other key component of the VRA was its fight against what is known as “vote dilution” - which is an election practice being implemented that weakens the voting strength of a community, even if that community now has the right to cast a ballot. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act governs this issue and aims to protect racial minorities by baring either election maps or methods of election (like district-based, at-large, or multi-member district) that harm the ability of that minority community from having a say in electoral politics.
After the 1965 Act was passed, many states, especially in the south, passed district maps that aimed to limit minority voting power. The most common method here was “cracking” of minority voters - in other words spreading them out over several districts rather than unite them under one. A good example of this is the 1982 Florida State House map. Up in the Tallahassee area, Black voters asked for majority-Black Gadsden County to be united with the Black community of southern Tallahassee; which would have formed a majority-Black State House seat. The panhandle area was, and still is, known for severe racially polarized voting, and Black voters struggled to make inroads with white voters. However, lawmakers instead passed a map that specifically kept these two large black communities in separate districts.
Here their goal was to use Black voters to shore-up white Democrats in several seats. The specific call from Black voters, who had only been given the right to vote a few decades earlier, was ignored. You can read my article about the 1980s Florida redistricting process here.
Such maps were initially upheld by the US Supreme Court as long as racism was not the clear intent. This sparked the 1982 amendments to the VRA, which saw Congress implement a “results test” to override the issue of intent. In other words, if the map you passed happens to hurt minority voter influence, regardless of whether you intended that or not, then your map was illegal. That Florida plan above would not fly under the newly-amended VRA.
The 1982 amendment would prove to be a watershed change in redistricting law, setting up several states, counties, and cities to restructure their elections. Subsequent Supreme Court cases would further shape the law. The 1986 case of Thornburg v Gingles is a groundbreaking case. In that ruling the court laid out when the Voting Rights Act could be used to challenge election maps/systems.
The racial/language minority is large enough and compact enough to make up a majority of a single member district
The minority group is politically cohesive (aka they can/do vote as a block)
The majority racial block often votes as a unit to deny minority candidates victory in elections. (THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT)
The 1982 VRA had massive implications on redistricting maps and election methods across the country. While we view the VRA largely as an issue around Congressional districts, the VRA has effected far more down-ballot office elections than it has Congressional. Issues like at-large voting for city council or county commission districts have been debated and challenged. If you want a better feel for the effects of the VRA on local politics, see my article on the debate over at-large voting in Liberty County, Florida.
The result of the 1982 Voting Rights Act amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings meant that the 1992 Congressional redistricting process would see massive changes. While some suits forced district changes in the mid-decade period, it was when every state had to redraw its lines after the 1990 census that the full effect of the VRA would be felt. Several states were going to be ordered to draw districts that united their minority communities and give them a chance to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.
Louisiana would be part of that.
Louisiana’s Original Map Fights
As I stated, the 1990s was a major year for redistricting and racial representation. At the time, most of the deep south had to submit their legislative and congressional maps to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance to ensure they were giving minority voters a say in electoral politics. All these pre-clearance states had long histories of Jim Crow tactics and still had issues with racially-polarized voting.
Louisiana was absolutely one of these states. While the state is around one-third Black, its voting pattern is very racially polarized. That existed in the 1990s and continues today. The Black population spread out through the state, but has heavy clustering in New Orleans and Baton Rough. Its northern parishes also hold large Black populations.
In terms of the largest Black population centers, Orleans and Baton Rouge hold the largest voting Blocks. Below are the parishes (counties) with the largest Black populations. Remember that, as it will be important for the debate over how many Black-majority districts the state should have.
Louisiana was initially ordered to redraw its Congressional districts in the mid 1980s. The 1986 elections saw Orleans Parish drawn in a Congressional district that was majority-Black. That was an easy remap, as Orleans has the largest population of Black voters in the state. The big debate for Louisiana and the VRA would come after the 1990 census, however.
Trying to Draw Two Black Districts
The 1991/1992 redistricting process in Louisiana is incredibly complicated, and I am going to just hit the highlights. The 1990s redistricting process across MANY states saw the issue of racial representation and compactness come into conflict. This was the era of really weird-looking districts. The combination of new computer technology and courts and the DOJ trying to implement the new mandates, led to many district maps that looked outright bizarre.
The 1992 Louisiana map was no exception to having bizarre district lines. While maintaining an Orleans Black district was simple, the state was ordered to draw a 2nd Black-majority district. Eventually the court had to step in and draw the map, leading to what we see below. The 4th district specifically was drawn to connect Black voters from Baton Rouge all the way across the northern end of the state. The district would elect Cleo Fields to Congress, making him Louisiana’s second Black congressman.
I know what you are thinking. Can anyone possibly justify such lines? No, these were insane. The intent, to give Black voters a unified voice, was noble. However, the lines had no logic other than collecting Black voters. Courts would begin to rule against such plans, arguing they were discriminatory because they separate voters entirely by race. After courts struck down that Louisiana plan, a new map was used in 1994, seen below.
This map would also not last through court challenges. States were given further legal clarity when the Supreme Court released two major cases in the mid 1990s. These are the Miller v Johnson and Shaw v Reno decisions. These cases struck down odd-looking districts that court found were drawn with only race in mind. In Miller, the court stated
“a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race”
In the Shaw case, Justice O’Conner wrote that such race-based districts are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning they must satisfy three conditions: a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve the goal, and use the least restrictive means to achieve the goal.
Broadly speaking, the court rejected what is known as “racially predominant” redistricting - which means that race was the only logic for why district lines looked they way they did. The court, and I must stress this, DID NOT strike down “racially conscious” redistricting. That method is where race is considered, but other redistricting principles; like natural borders or county lines, are also taken into account.
In other words, the court did uphold the goal of the VRA and its mandates to draw minority districts were possible. However, the VRA was set to safeguard from unfair mapping practices that limited minority voting influence where they otherwise could form minority districts. For example, the Orleans Black-majority district was protected, as it was easy to draw such a seat. However, if they only way to draw a second district was to have it stretch across the state like the 1992 or 1994 plans, then such districts were liable to be struck down.
For far more details on this whole period, I recommend my Florida redistricting history series. Like Lousiana, Florida had to contend with compactness issues and VRA mandates, leading to several court cases. The article on Florida’s State Legislative Redistricting and its Congressional redistricting can be seen in the links attached.
After these 1994 plan was struck down, Louisiana moved forward with a map that only had one majority-Black district - still based in Orleans and Represented by Congressman William Jefferson. Congressman Fields, having no district he could win in, left Congress and was elected to the Lousiana State Senate in 1997.
Louisiana Heading Toward 2024
After the chaotic back and forth of 1990s redistricting, things settled into a status quo in Louisiana for several years. Drawing a 2nd majority-Black district proved to be too difficult while also maintaining compactness mandates laid out by the US Supreme Court.
The 2011 redistricting process is when clamoring about district layouts re-ignited. This was the first time Republicans, who’d taken control of the state legislature, would be in charge of drafting maps. Changes to the 2nd were going to be needed, as the Orleans area was in severe population decline due to Hurricane Katrina.
As a result, talk largely centered around the 2nd needing to expand west along the corridor of the Mississippi river that holds many Black residents. The final map, however, went much further than Black voters desired. The new plan connected Black voters all the way from Orleans to Baton Rouge, effectively packing Black voters into a district that was 59% Black.
A lawsuit was filed over this, arguing that the plan was designed to pack Black voters and limit their influence to the 2nd district. The argument was that Baton Rouge’s Black population should be the anchor for a different district; whether it would be majority-Black seat or a district with a large Black population share that needed to be listened to.
During the the 2011 redistricting process, the State Senate had passed a map that put Baton Rouge’s Black population in a Black-access seat separate from the Orleans district. This map, however, was threatened with a veto by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.
This lawsuit would ultimately not succeed, with the biggest issue being that the VRA only protects districts when a 50%+ minority seat can be drawn. Regardless, the new layout of the 2nd was clearly a method of “packing” - another version of vote dilution. Rather than give the Baton Rouge Black community the chance to influence a separate district, they were linked to Orleans; which still dominated the vote in the district.
The 2021 Redistricting Process and Lawsuit
After the 2020 census data became available, redistricting kicked off in Louisiana once again. The latest data showed that Black voters remained around one-third of the state’s population. What’s more, the evidence existed that a compact second majority-Black district was possible with Baton Rouge as an anchor. Governor John Bell Edwards, a Democrat elected in 2015 and re-election in 2019, endorsed the push for a 2nd Black district in the delegation.
Despite the calls of Governor Edwards, Republicans pushed forward with a plan that largely maintained the status quo. The new plan continued the practice of packing Black voters into the 2nd Congressional district. This plan, as seen below, was vetoed by Governor Edwards.
In his veto message, Edwards stated
“This map is simply not fair to the people of Louisiana and does not meet the standards set forth in the federal Voting Rights Act. The Legislature should immediately begin the work of drawing a map that ensures Black voices can be properly heard in the voting booth. It can be done and it should be done.”
However, thanks to their strong margins in the legislature, the Republicans were able to override the veto and the map became law.
The plan kept the 2nd district largely the same as it had been in 2012. The district was heavily packed with Black voters. Sitting at 59% Black voting-age population and over 60% estimated citizen Black voting age population.
In March of 2022, a group of Black voters filed a federal lawsuit, arguing the lack of a second majority-Black congressional district violated the Voting Rights Act. The suit, Robinson v. Landry, was decided in June of the same year, with the federal court siding WITH the Black plaintiffs and ordering a new map!
In the ruling, which can be seen in the above links, the court pointed out that Louisiana still had extremely racially polarized voting. Black candidates struggled, no matter the race, to win sufficient white support to succeed in districts without sizeable Black populations. This fact, coupled with the evidence that a compact, race conscious but not race predominant, second majority-Black district could be drawn, meant that such a change was needed.
While the state quickly file appeals to the ruling, a special session to consider other plans if a stay of the decision was not offered. Several alternative maps were offered, showing a compact plan could be passed. This plan, seen below, was offered by State Senator, and the former Congressman, Cleo Fields
In that plan, the 2nd and 5th districts (green and yellow) are majority-Black.
However, before a new map could be implemented for the 2022 midterms, the US Supreme Court stayed the ruling as appeals went on. As a result, the 2022 elections went ahead with the lines the legislature passed.
Stay Lifted and Remap Ordered
In 2023, the US Supreme Court issues its Allen v. Milligan ruling, a major VRA decision I wrote about here. The case revolved around a similar lawsuit in Alabama. There, Republicans had likewise aimed to only draw one majority-Black district despite the demographics showing a second one was possible. The court sided with the plaintiffs and Alabama was likewise ordered to remap. You can see the Alabama map and detail here. With that ruling, the Supreme Court also listed its stay of the Louisiana case.
The 2023/2024 Remap
In November of 2023, the federal court ordered Louisiana to redraw its Congressional districts and include a second majority-Black district. Lawmakers had until January to draft new lines, otherwise the court would take over the process and draw a district itself.
Republican Feuds Decide Lines
With a court mandate to redraw lines, Republicans in the state felt they had no choice but to comply. In Alabama, lawmakers had refused to follow the court directive and instead allowed the court to implement a new map. In Louisiana, Republicans decided they’d rather have a say in how the lines looked. This was heavily driven by Governor Jeff Landry, a Republican that was elected in October of 2023 after Governor Edwards was termed out. Landry and fellow Republicans were adamant to draw the lines themselves. Since the new districts would inevitably cost one Republican their seat, as any majority-Black district would lean Democratic, Landry and others were eager to decide who would be sacrificed rather than leave it to the courts.
Three Republicans were at most risk with the redistricting order. Any new Black-majority district would include Baton Rouge and expand to the North and west. The Congresspeople at risk of seeing their districts radically altered where Mike Johnson, Julie Letlow, and Garret Graves.
From the start, Graves was considered the individual most in trouble. Graves was a key ally of Speaker Kevin McCarthy working with the Speaker on getting a debt ceiling deal through the House over conservative revolts. This, however, eventually led to Speaker McCarthy being ousted in a motion to vacate in October of 2023. The resulting struggle led to Mike Johnson being elevated as Speaker. Johnson was of course going to be protected, but Graves was now without a powerful protector and had angered conservatives. Perhaps most important of all for Graves, he had endorsed one of Governor Landry’s opponents for the 2023 Governor race. Landry now led the push for the legislature to draw the districts itself.
Congresswoman Julie Letlow, meanwhile, was well liked in Republican circles and had great sympathy after her husband passed. Letlow’s husband had just won the 5th Congressional district in the 2020 elections, but died from COVID before he could take office. Julie then ran for and won the seat in a 2021 special election.
However, if we examined the most compact option, turning Letlow’s district into the majority-Black seat was the easiest option, as demonstrated from the Cleo Field’s proposed map already highlighted in this article. However, it became clear that Letlow would be protected. Graves was on the chopping block.
In mid-January of 2024, the Louisiana legislature approved a new Congressional plan. The map in question re-created the 1994 version Black-majority seat of the time; having a district that stretched all the way from Baton Rouge and up Shreveport.
While this map is as ugly as sin, it served the political purpose of screwing over Congressman Graves. His district was divided across several districts, leaving him with no real power base to run in. Graves could try to run in the Black-majority 6th, or primary a fellow Republican, but no move would likely result in victory. Congresswoman Letlow’s 5th was largely kept the same, and Johnson’s district simply got whiter, losing voters that never backed him anyway.
How the 2nd Congressional District was changed can be seen below. The biggest change is the district loses the heavily Black portion of Baton Rouge, instead filling in population figures from surrounding counties.
This does make the 2nd more compact. It is less Black than the 6th, but is more democratic leaning. This is thanks to the Orleans white voters being less racially polarized than Black voters are to the north. As an aside, there is really no reasons Orleans parish cannot be made more whole here. That, however, is a small nitpick.
The 6th district, however, is a whole other story. The district, drawn to be 54% Black, stretches all the way from Baton Rouge up to Shreveport in Caddo parish. It is ugly as sin.
This district’s layout of very much not compact and is very likely racially predominant. The lines to the northwest are largely centered around race. This, however, is due to the decision of map makers to link Caddo parish to the Baton Rouge INSTEAD of just having Baton Rouge go up through the northeast parishes along the Mississippi Delta. Again this was not done in order to protect Congresswoman Letlow.
The map was quickly subjected to a lawsuit over its lines.
Legal Back and forth and 2024 Elections
In late March of 2024, a federal court ruled AGAINST the Congressional map, saying that the 6th district was racially predominant and hence illegal. The court did NOT rule against the mandate for a second Black district, simply the layout passed. This ruling, however, was stayed by the US Supreme just a month later. In the SCOTUS ruling, the court’s six conservatives Justices ruled that it was too close to the primary elections to consider any new maps, instead ordering the plan to be used for the 2024 elections. The three liberal justices, meanwhile, argued that there was time for a new and more compact map to be used.
With that SCOTUS order, the 2024 elections went ahead under the new map. In the 6th district, former Congressman and then State Senator Cleo Fields filed for the seat. He quickly accumulated strong Democratic Party support, easily winning the election in November. As a reminder, Louisiana uses the “Jungle Primary” system where everyone runs on one ballot. By securing 51% of the vote, Fields avoided the need for a runoff.
Republican Elbert Guillory, a former State Senator, was the lone Republican in the race, taking 38% of the vote. The remaining vote all went to Democratic candidates.
Now this district’s shape is before the court once again, as laid out at the top of this article.
A More Compact Map
As the Supreme Court case has gone on, far too many people have said that the mandate for two Black districts is at the heart of the non-compact maps. For the far-right, this justifies their argument that the Voting Rights Act should be declared unconstitutional. However, as I hope I’ve made clear, the non-compact nature of many of these lines, whether the modern 6th or the old 2nd, is due to political decisions made by lawmakers.
As I laid out, when the state was debating Congressional maps, several far more compact options were proposed. In addition to the ample maps submitted to the legislature, I drafted my own plan as well. This map, as seen below, aims to limit Parish splits and balance compactness with the Voting Rights Act.
Both the 2nd and 6th are Black-performing districts. Both are less Black than the current map, but as VRA experts will tell you, their is no magic number to hit (48% vs 50% is not an issue for the courts, as previous cases have ruled). What matters is how the districts perform in elections themselves. Both districts would back Black candidates for office; both also voted for Kamala Harris in 2024.
Here, the 2nd is solidly Democratic and Black voters make up a vast majority of Democrat-aligned voters. The white voters of Orleans parish, which I opt to make more whole, also are less racially polarized. The 6th district meanwhile, is slightly more Black, just over 50%, but is also less Democratic. Unlike the 2nd, this portion of the state still has far more racially polarized elections, especially in the northern parishes north of Baton Rouge. This map aimed to keep more parishes whole, but I small changes could be made it if was felt that beefing up the numbers was needed.
My plan here is hardly gospel and is just an example of the options you have. That map would be VRA compliant and doesn’t look like a Picasso painting.
Final Thoughts
We will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does in this case. The apocalyptic scenario is that they strike down the Voting Rights Act itself. Granted, any number of more limited rulings are possible. I don’t see any scenario where the 6th district is upheld. My ideal ruling would simply be a “this 6th is not allowed, go back and draw again but still maintain to Black districts.” This would be the sane ruling, but this far-right court has not shown much sanity in recent years.
I am hoping/praying for the best out of this case. We will see where it goes. I am working on some additional Voting Rights Act articles. In the meantime, the point o this article is - that ugly map is not the VRA’s doing. That ugly map was all about internal Republican politics. Lets place blame were it properly belongs.