Partisan, racial, and electoral politics have all come into focus over membership on the Louisiana Supreme Court, as conflict bubbling behind the scenes over the past few years has burst into open struggle among the justices – begging old wine in a new bottle from incoming governor Rep. Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry.
Last month, most Louisiana Supreme Court members signed onto a request for the Louisiana Legislature to take up its reapportionment soon. The Legislature almost certainly will be called into special session in fewer than two weeks by Landry to deal with an unrelated and court-forced reapportionment matter.
The Court hasn’t been reapportioned since 1999 when it was rejiggered to create a minority-majority district among eight. Constitutionally, states who elect judges aren’t required to reapportion on the basis of population because judiciary are not considered to be majoritarian organs of government making policy as they confine themselves to adjudication, although a languishing long-shot suit trying to reverse that in Louisiana remains pending.
But since 2021, the Legislature has considered a number of bills to reapportion the Court, some as a means to accomplish what the suit wants, two M/M districts out of seven. These have gone nowhere, in contrast to other bills backed by Landry which would create two of nine but also are constitutional amendments requiring supermajorities to pass. These in a couple of instances passed a chamber but didn’t get out of the other, primarily because all black Democrat legislators present opposed them as they pinned their hopes on the fantasy that the present arrangement would be considered unconstitutional to produce two of seven M/M districts rather than the possibility of two of nine M/M districts under the amendment.
Yet now they have found allies in five members of the Court, arguing and presenting a plan – apparently concocted by the same special interests behind the reason for the special session in their pushing through the courts an attempt to make the state draw two M/M districts of out six for Congress – following the 2-of-7 apportionment. Perhaps not surprisingly, the map they offered appears to enable the three of them who can run for reelection (there is an age limit of 70) to do so more securely and the boundaries are such that none of the five would have to leave office early (there is a district domicile requirement of a year prior to seating).
That’s not the case with no party Chief Justice John Weimer, who would appear to lose residency of his current (Sixth) district under the proposed plan. In response, he penned a note made public that supports the 2-of-7 idea but said the proposal violated traditional principles of reapportionment, which still have to be followed in drawing judicial maps, even as it solved for the current malapportionment. In a separate letter, Republican Second District Assoc. Justice Scott Crichton, who cannot run for reelection this year, argued much the same.
These arguments echoed those of Landry in yet another judicial matter, the state’s request to dissolve the Chisom. v. Roemer consent decree. He argued the court supervision of this, which forced the last reapportionment to create the existing M/M district, locked any reapportionment attempt precisely into the complaints of Weimer and Crichton that it created bizarre-shaped districts that run roughshod over the principles, particularly of keeping communities of interest together.
His solution was to go with the 2-of-9 plan, of which no public maps have been issued but theoretically should make for districts of greater compactness, contiguity, and thus better preserve communities of interest, as well as to reduce malapportionment. Having the consent decree complicates implementation of that plan, which would require add-on statutory changes as well. Currently, the courts have ruled against dissolution with a request pending for the entire U.S. Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals to hear the case.
Nothing legally compels the Legislature to act, but if it does it should go along with Weimer’s recommendation that consideration occur during the regular session for greater opportunity for analysis but that it follow the 2-of-9 avenue given the infirmities of the 2-of-7 idea. If they will Supreme Court reapportionment, with Landry as governor and supermajorities of his party in the incoming Legislature, the 2-of-9 plan that promises better districts than both at present and under a 2-of-7 plan should end up on a ballot soon for voter ratification.
No comments:
Post a Comment