Republican Gov. Jeff Landry’s first big move as Louisiana’s chief executive is more likely to blow up than pay off.
An imperative to provide some rational alternative to the state’s present congressional map provided the main impetus for the Legislature’s special session currently in session. A federal district judge declared that the district plan which contains only one of six majority-minority districts unconstitutional, and jurisprudence for the moment dictates that the state must come up with a plan that at the very least creates an additional opportunity district – one that has a plurality of residents who identify racially as least partially as black – or an additional M/M district. If that doesn’t happen by Jan. 30, by default in February the court will draw its own map, with the court’s ideological leanings likely making it a two M/M outcome.
The state has two options here: either capitulate to draw the two M/M districts or to produce a map with fewer constructed in a way to probe outstanding constitutional questions on the matter. Two of those loom large: a partial dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court decision opening the door to elevate race above other reapportionment criteria such as maintaining continuity of representation and keeping community of interests together that if directly challenging that use as timebound would negate it, and conflicting rulings by circuit courts of appeals whether non-government groups can challenge government reapportionment choices that eventually the Court will have to sort out.
Landry has backed surrender by signaling support for SB 8 by Republican state Sen. Glen Womack. The bill would convert the existing Sixth District into M/M status mainly by shifting the westerly northwestern Fourth eastward and south to connect parts of Shreveport with Alexandria and to the doorstep of Lake Charles, attenuating the reach of the central to northeastern Fifth from the south and west but connecting Monroe to Baton Rouge, and lopping off the southern end of the Baton Rouge-south-to-the-coast Sixth in favor of extending it from inner-city Shreveport down the Red River to gulp in parts of Alexandria then splaying southward to pick off parts of Lafayette and Baton Rouge while removing Baton Rouge precincts from the Second.
Like a plan favored by special interests and Democrats that makes likely Democrats can win the two M/M seats, it grants narrow black majorities in each. The difference is the Democrat-favored plan, which the district court probably would try to impose in absence of legislative action, would rejigger lines to make the Fifth M/M.
Landry appears to prefer SB 8 because in part it protects the electability of GOP Rep. Julia Letlow, the state’s only female member and of one of just nine GOP congresswomen in the deep south, but mainly as it threatens GOP Rep. Garret Graves, who has stirred resentment not only of Landry but by other members of the Republican congressional delegation. Graves indirectly supported an opponent of Landry’s and worked against the leadership aspirations of the top two leaders of the House of Representatives, Louisianans Republicans Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
If choosing SB 8 as the option, essentially the state forfeits any chance of retaining its current single M/M lineup, not only by its discarding but also in that it forgoes the chance at the constitutional challenges. By no means is it a sure thing that a single M/M plan, even with another opportunity district, would prevail, so Landry’s strategy could be seen as setting aside the chance to reflect better the will of the voters and Legislature in favor of a sure thing that also achieves other purposes, although it would rankle some members of his party that has a supermajority in each chamber.
Not entirely willing to go along apparently is Republican state Rep. Mike Echols, whose HB 14 would make both the Second and Sixth opportunity districts with black voting-age residents at about 48 percent. The Sixth would stop its northern reach into part of Alexandria and still gulp in part of Lafayette, but it keeps Baton Rouge almost entirely together and does less splitting of metropolitan areas than does either Landry’s or Democrats’ preferred alternatives. Best of all, it keeps alive the possibility of resolving the constitutional question of whether opportunity districts would stand.
Keep in mind that a separate challenge concerning Louisiana’s legislative maps already has brought forth the constitutional question about whether using race so aggressively in reapportionment, despite wording in the Voting Rights Act that declares proportionality in population is not mandated to translate into proportionate seating, can continue to be applied. Resolution of that case could kick out the rationale behind both a two M/M congressional map and one with two opportunity districts.
But the problem in going with SB 8 over HB 14 is the district court could invalidate the SB 8 two M/M map and then impose the Democrats’ preference. The Sixth District in SB 8 in characteristics is too much like the “slash” Fourth District in Louisiana’s second attempt to reapportion after the 1990 census, which was declared unconstitutional in placing too much emphasis of race at the expense of other reapportionment principles.
If this happens, Landry and the GOP majorities lose both their second-choice map and preference in protected Republican congressional incumbents, immediately. The state could challenge in that circumstance, but that past jurisprudence suggests it would lose and makes less certain that the judiciary wouldn’t impose the Democrat-preferred map in time for 2024 elections and beyond. Depending upon the constitutional questions it doesn’t ask finding their resolution by other means and how quickly that happens, Louisiana could be stuck with its third-choice map – but Democrats’ first choice – up until 2032 reapportionment after the 2030 census.
By contrast, backing HB 14 produces more desirable outcomes. At worst, the district court and special interest plaintiffs accept it, giving Landry’s party a shot at winning both opportunity districts, but if not likely ousting their preferred GOP sacrificial lamb, until such time the Supreme Court could axe race’s preferred position in reapportionment before 2032 reapportionment generated from the 2030 census that if happening before then the state could go back and perform a mid-decade reapportionment back returning to the first-choice plan.
If either the district court or plaintiffs disagree, then the state could initiate legal action that pushes the desired constitutional questions towards quicker resolution, all the while much likelier preserving their first-choice map for 2024 and perhaps permanently with favorable Court resolution by 2026. Indeed, because not only is the HB 14 plan better on all reapportionment principles than SB 8 it’s also better on these than any Democrats’ preferred plans, excepting potentially on racial distribution, it stands a good chance of Supreme Court validation should the timebound question either not have been addressed by then or decided that it didn’t apply, or can ask that itself.
By tying themselves to SB 8, Landry and the Republican majority unnecessarily gamble, where while this may increase the chances of Graves not returning to Congress compared to HB 14 it also increases the chances of having a map imposed that loses Letlow instead while decreasing the chances of achieving sooner their first-choice map. Odds are greater if they pursue that course that they will be saddled with their least-preferred choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment