There is no doubt that Louisiana’s current congressional map that jackknifes into it two black majority-minority districts of six will disappear sooner than later, argumentation in front of the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today revealed, but just how little of a role race will play in apportionment going forward remains to be seen when the Court’s ruling on the consolidated Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais comes out.
From the start, the Court majority, those justices picked by a Republican president, unambiguously signaled the current map soon would hit the ash heap, confirming lower court rulings, precisely because of the dominant role race played in its creation. GOP Gov. Jeff Landry successfully urged the Legislature to draw the current map after the Court refused to resolve the conflict between statute (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act) and the Constitution (the Equal Protection Clause) as to how prominently race could be used to precent potential discrimination by race.
Too far, as the Louisiana case that the Court’s previous ruling impacted demonstrated. In that instance, for the first time ever a court ruled that, despite the actual wording of Section 2, that if a state had a discrete minority population of a certain proportion that the number of seats that were M/M roughly had to correspond to that. This was the logical extension of a bedrock assumption drawn into the jurisprudence of the VRA, that regarding race outcome mattered, not intent, when districts were drawn: if you could maximize the number of M/M or opportunity districts for a plenary body that avoided not having at least a poor argument justifying the ways in which it could violate traditional principles of map-drawing in order to cater to race, you had to maximize.