Republican attorneys general seek to use Louisiana redistricting case to weaken voting rights law

Fourteen Republican attorneys general are arguing that a federal judge’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act in a decision overturning Louisiana’s legislative maps was unconstitutional.

The attorneys general, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, outlined their views in an amicus brief filed Wednesday in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. Nairne v. Ardoin.

“States deserve to be informed about how to draft redistricting laws that are consistent with federal law,” the brief reads. “Yet, because of the district court’s free-wheeling approach, members of the Louisiana Legislature could never guess in advance what facts a court would find would trigger a violation (of the Voting Rights Act) and thus justify allegedly unconstitutional race-based redistricting.”

Jared Evans, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who represents black Louisianans in redistricting lawsuits, said attorneys general, several of whom are defending their own states against Voting Rights Act lawsuits, are trying to turn Louisiana’s legislative redistricting trial into a test case to weaken the landmark civil rights legislation.

Their case concerns Section 2 of the law, which prohibits electoral laws or procedures that deliberately discriminate on the basis of race, colour or membership in a minority language group.

“They know that if Section 2 is upheld, many states will have to add black districts to their congressional districts, school board districts and all the other political districts,” Evans said in an interview. “Every case that comes before the Supreme Court under Section 2 is a test to see if they can poke more holes in Section 2 jurisprudence.”

In February, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick of the Middle District of Louisiana ruled
Nairne v. Ardoin The maps that Louisiana lawmakers drew two years ago to update their own district boundaries don’t give Black voters a fair chance to elect their own representatives. The plaintiffs in the case are Black voters who challenged then-Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, Louisiana’s top elections official.

In her decision, Dick, appointed by former President Barack Obama to the federal court, gave the state a “reasonable period of time” to approve new legislative districts that do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In her decision, Judge Dick did not specify what a reasonable time frame is or how many majority-black districts would be needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs said the state would need to add six seats to the Louisiana House of Representatives and three to the Senate. Currently, 28 of the 105 House seats are majority-black, as are 11 of the 39 Senate seats.

In the months since that decision, Republicans have stepped up efforts to weaken key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Relying on a 2023 ruling by the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit that only the federal government can seek enforcement action under the Voting Rights Act, Republican attorneys general and election officials have sought to intervene in voter lawsuits, such as Nairne v. Ardoin.

In April, Louisiana filed a brief in the case asking the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider an appeal on the grounds that there is no private right of action under the Voting Rights Act. That means voters would have no legal right to sue for violations of their rights.

The court denied the state a hearing before the full court, but the dispute remains pending before a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit.

The 8th Circuit’s decision is legally unsound, Evans argued.

“Section 2 has been upheld and private groups have been allowed to sue since the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 1984, and so this is another attempt to weaken the Voting Rights Act,” Evans said.
.

Much of the attorney general’s brief relies on a footnote in Dick’s decision.

On page 84 of the 91-page document, Dick writes the following in a footnote: “Dr. Washington emphasized the subliminal message that the sheriff’s office was located on the same floor as his voter registration office.”

The footnote refers to a government building in an unnamed parish where the sheriff and clerk are headquartered on the same floor, which Alice Washington, a black voter from Louisiana, cited as evidence of voter suppression.

The 14 attorneys general repeatedly derided this idea in their briefs:

“The Voting Rights Act is about the right to register, to vote and to participate in politics – win or lose – not about rumors circulating in churches.”

“Perhaps if these walls could literally talk, the district court’s interpretation would not be ‘hopelessly indeterminate,'” the brief continues.

“…But bad vibes cannot be the criterion for vote dilution,” the attorneys general also wrote.

Evans rejected their arguments.

“Given the history of minorities with law enforcement, police overreach and brutality, having to register in the same place where law enforcement is housed is a form of voter suppression and intimidation,” Evans said.

“I don’t see exactly what they’re trying to brag about or what they’re trying to imply,” he added.

Marshall, the Alabama attorney general, was joined in the brief by his counterparts from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is charged in
Nairne v. Aucoin and not having joined the case, declined to provide comment for this report.

In a June progress report, legislative leaders told Dick they had no immediate plans to draw new state House and Senate maps.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains its editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose with questions: [email protected]. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and X.