(The Center Square) − Louisiana lawmakers can immediately begin drawing a new congressional map after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday night put into effect its ruling striking down the state’s current map.
Normally, the Supreme Court waits 32 days before formally sending its ruling back to the lower court, so the losing side can ask for rehearing. Until that happens, the lower court can’t act. With election deadlines approaching, the Court sent the ruling down immediately so the lower court can move forward on a new map.
The move comes less than a week after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that the state’s 2024 congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That map created two majority-Black districts after earlier litigation found that Louisiana’s prior map, which had only one majority-Black district out of six, likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision had immediate practical effects. Gov. Jeff Landry has already suspended Louisiana’s May 16 closed congressional primaries for U.S. House races, arguing the state cannot hold elections under a map the court has deemed unconstitutional. The suspension applies only to U.S. House contests; other elections and ballot measures scheduled for May 16 will proceed.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the court’s decision had “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.” She noted that ballots had already been mailed to overseas, military and absentee voters before Landry suspended the congressional primaries. She wrote that granting the request was “tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rejected that criticism. In a concurring opinion, Alito said waiting 32 days could itself create the appearance of favoritism by allowing elections to proceed under a map the court had already struck down.
“The dissent’s rhetoric lacks restraint,” Alito wrote. He added that Jackson’s arguments were “baseless and insulting.”
