Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb today urged the US Supreme Court to reaffirm that states, in exercising their primary responsibility for legislative redistricting, should be given the first opportunity to redraw legislative maps in response to likely violations of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In an amicus brief filed in Louisiana v. Callais, a coalition of 20 attorneys general, led by Attorney General Schwalb and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is supporting the State of Louisiana and a group of Louisiana voters seeking to uphold a congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts.
In 2022, a federal court in the Middle District of Louisiana found that the state’s congressional map likely diluted the votes of Black residents and thus violated Section 2 of the VRA. In response, to comply with the VRA, the Louisiana legislature enacted a new map in 2024 that added a second majority-Black district. Later, a different group of self-identified “non-African American voters” sued the state in the Western District of Louisiana, arguing that the 2024 remedial map with a second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Despite binding Supreme Court precedent allowing states to redistrict when there is a “good reason” to believe they must do so to comply with the VRA, the three-judge court in the Western District of Louisiana barred the state from using the 2024 VRA-compliant map, trapping Louisiana between competing court orders and undermining the state’s ability to craft legislative districts that comply with federal voting rights law. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Western District of Louisiana’s constitutional ruling was correct.
“Louisiana legislators fixed a voting regime that likely diluted the votes of Black residents by adopting a map that fairly—and finally—enfranchises Black voters,” said Attorney General Schwalb. “As a matter of law, states must have the flexibility to address racial discrimination in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. My state AG colleagues and I urge the Supreme Court to reject establishing a national precedent that would threaten minority voters' ability to fully participate in American democracy.”
In their brief, the state attorneys general argue that in assigning elected state legislatures the primary role in redistricting, the Constitution gives them ample “breathing room” to enact legislative maps that remedy likely VRA violations. The brief explains that the finding by a federal court that Louisiana’s existing map likely violated the VRA provided the state with a good reason to believe that its addition of a second majority-Black district was required to comply with the federal voting rights statute and thus did not violate Constitution. The brief also urges the Court to reject the arguments in an amicus brief filed by Alabama and 12 other states to toss out years of settled voting rights precedent interpreting Section 2 of the VRA. Not only would it be inappropriate to address Alabama’s arguments in this case, but accepting those arguments would undermine states’ decades-long reliance on the Supreme Court’s settled interpretation of Section 2.
The full amicus brief is available here. AG Schwalb is joined in filing this brief by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
This matter was handled by Assistant Attorney General Mark Rucci and Solicitor General Caroline Van Zile.