Supreme Court weighs Voting Rights Act and state redistricting powers

December 31, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Attorney General Letitia James has joined a coalition of attorneys general in urging the Supreme Court to uphold states' authority to redraw legislative maps in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Photo: Bebeto Matthews/AP

Share this:

Redistricting disputes have reached the Supreme Court, as attorneys general argue for states’ authority to redraw legislative maps under the Voting Rights Act.

Attorney General Letitia James, alongside 19 other attorneys general, has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold states’ authority to redraw legislative maps in response to potential violations of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The coalition submitted an amicus brief in Louisiana v. Callais, backing Louisiana’s efforts to create a congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts after the original map was found to dilute Black voting power.

“Voters should be empowered to pick their representatives, not the other way around,” said Attorney General James. “State legislatures have a constitutional right to redraw district maps when they are found to violate the Voting Rights Act and fail to fairly represent their communities.”

In 2022, a federal court ruled that Louisiana’s initial congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting Black votes. In response, the state legislature approved a new map in 2024 that included a second majority-Black district. A separate lawsuit brought by a group of non-Black voters argued the new map constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

The Western District of Louisiana blocked the state from using the revised map, placing Louisiana in a legal bind between conflicting court orders. The Supreme Court will now determine the validity of the Western District’s ruling.

The attorneys general’s brief defends Louisiana’s compliance with the VRA, arguing that the state had “good reason” to adopt the revised map. It also challenges arguments from Alabama and 12 other states that seek to overturn established interpretations of Section 2 of the VRA, which have long guided states in their redistricting efforts.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder to remove the preclearance requirement shifted the responsibility for addressing voting rights and redistricting disputes to the courts, as demonstrated in Louisiana’s congressional map case.

Preclearance had previously required jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before making changes to election laws or district maps. Without this safeguard, states like Louisiana must navigate conflicting judicial rulings while attempting to comply with the VRA and address concerns about minority representation.

This legal change has spurred an increase in state-led voting legislation and redistricting efforts, including debates over majority-minority districts like those in Louisiana. The absence of federal oversight has heightened reliance on judicial review, often requiring courts to address disputes after election laws and district maps are enacted, complicating efforts to ensure adherence to the VRA.

Joining James in filing the brief were attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.