Supreme Court voids majority Black congressional district in Louisiana, boosting Republican chances

[kilroy69]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six conservatives.

The decision weakens a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting. It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.

.

The 1965 voting rights law, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement, succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting.

Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

Alito wrote that "allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.” He said Section 2 is effectively limited to instances of intentional discrimination, a very high standard.

Kagan said the upshot of the decision is that states "can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.”

The court heard the case for a second time in October and it’s not clear whether the decision was issued early enough for some states, including Louisiana, to consider a new round of redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, in which Republicans are trying to preserve a thin majority.

President Donald Trump had already touched off a nationwide redistricting battle to boost Republican chances.

Legislatures already are free to draw extremely partisan districts because of a 2019 Supreme Court decision.

The court’s decision was released as Florida legislators debated a proposed redrawing of the state’s congressional lines, submitted by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and intended to give the GOP a chance to pick up as many as four seats in the state’s U.S. House delegation.

Democrats in the Florida Senate urged the Republican supermajority to delay debate to at least offer lawmakers a chance to read the decision and consult lawyers on how it might affect DeSantis’ proposal. Republicans refused.

In the Supreme Court's Louisiana ruling, the justices did an about-face from a decision in a similar case from Alabama less than three years ago that led to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress.

Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberals to form a majority in the Alabama case. Both joined Alito's opinion Wednesday.

The Alabama decision also prompted Louisiana lawmakers to add a second majority Black district. About a third of Louisianans are Black and they now form majorities in two of the state’s six congressional districts. Alabama has a separate appeal pending at the Supreme Court.

___

[Hardcore troubadour]

Wow. Democrats have 70 seats at risk due to this? Holy cow. Better break out the checkbooks. 

[kilroy69]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Wow. Democrats have 70 seats at risk due to this? Holy cow. Better break out the checkbooks. 

that could kill the Democrats chances for the next 10-20 years. Hell it would be more likely that a splinter party of the republicans emerges with more power than dems. 

[dogcows]

The only 4 black Republicans in the House of Representatives are all leaving office this year.

It doesn’t feel like Republicans are very welcoming of black people.

[SUXBNME]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The only 4 black Republicans in the House of Representatives are all leaving office this year.

It doesn’t feel like Republicans are very welcoming of black people.

Cause we're rassist, amirite?

[Hardcore troubadour]

16 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The only 4 black Republicans in the House of Representatives are all leaving office this year.

It doesn’t feel like Republicans are very welcoming of black people.

One of them is going to be the governor of Florida. 

[seafoam1]

I thought we lumped in black people with "people of color"? Are we isolating them all again? I can't keep up with today's liberal identity politics. 

[dogcows]

33 minutes ago, SUXBNME said:

Cause we're rassist, amirite?

You said it

[cyclone24]

35 minutes ago, SUXBNME said:

Cause we're rassist, amirite?

Remember, if you don’t let them form whatever racially motivated district they want or you ask them to have a little personal responsibility to be able to vote on their own and you are a racist who’s oppressing people.

That’s just how their mind works. “Let us do whatever we want otherwise you are XYZ name”. They think it still works. We just ignore it but it’s cute to watch.

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 hour ago, kilroy69 said:

In the Supreme Court's Louisiana ruling, the justices did an about-face from a decision in a similar case from Alabama less than three years ago that led to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress.

It’s just crazy. Mandate racially balanced districts. No don’t.

Also USSC, we don’t care about gerrymandering. VA USDC: oh yeah USSC totally hates gerrymandering. Also USSC, no racial gerrymandering, but white suburban gerrymandering is ok.

[Engorgeous George]

Lengthy opinion.  I lost interest before finishing.  i will have to take a second run at it.

 

I did finish the opinion on First Choice.

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

1 hour ago, kilroy69 said:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six conservatives.

The decision weakens a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting. It’s unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.

.

The 1965 voting rights law, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement, succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting.

Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

Alito wrote that "allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.” He said Section 2 is effectively limited to instances of intentional discrimination, a very high standard.

Kagan said the upshot of the decision is that states "can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.”

The court heard the case for a second time in October and it’s not clear whether the decision was issued early enough for some states, including Louisiana, to consider a new round of redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, in which Republicans are trying to preserve a thin majority.

President Donald Trump had already touched off a nationwide redistricting battle to boost Republican chances.

Legislatures already are free to draw extremely partisan districts because of a 2019 Supreme Court decision.

The court’s decision was released as Florida legislators debated a proposed redrawing of the state’s congressional lines, submitted by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and intended to give the GOP a chance to pick up as many as four seats in the state’s U.S. House delegation.

Democrats in the Florida Senate urged the Republican supermajority to delay debate to at least offer lawmakers a chance to read the decision and consult lawyers on how it might affect DeSantis’ proposal. Republicans refused.

In the Supreme Court's Louisiana ruling, the justices did an about-face from a decision in a similar case from Alabama less than three years ago that led to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress.

Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberals to form a majority in the Alabama case. Both joined Alito's opinion Wednesday.

The Alabama decision also prompted Louisiana lawmakers to add a second majority Black district. About a third of Louisianans are Black and they now form majorities in two of the state’s six congressional districts. Alabama has a separate appeal pending at the Supreme Court.

___

This is great news!  As everyone knows, RACISM is not a good thing so I would expect all of our board liberals to be on board with this.  After all, aren't we supposed to be judging people on the content of their character instead of their skin color?  Someone once said that.  Not sure who that was.

It's about time the race grifting comes to an end and the SCOTUS is slowly making sure of that.  That's GOOD, if you can't figure it out.

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

57 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The only 4 black Republicans in the House of Representatives are all leaving office this year.

It doesn’t feel like Republicans are very welcoming of black people.

Says the guy who votes for the Democrat Party that has been as racist as they were back in the Civil War, Jim Crowe and KKK eras.  

You tigers didn't change your stripes - you just moved black people from a physical plantation to a virtual one.

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

45 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s just crazy. Mandate racially balanced districts. No don’t.

Also USSC, we don’t care about gerrymandering. VA USDC: oh yeah USSC totally hates gerrymandering. Also USSC, no racial gerrymandering, but white suburban gerrymandering is ok.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read that ruling correctly.

Maybe this will help:

"While the court had previously assumed that states could consider race in seeking to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Alito wrote that "allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context."

In justifying the court's change of course, Alito highlighted developments in recent years, including "social change" in the South, where most of the race-based redistricting challenges arise. He also cited the court's 2019 decision that paved the way to unfettered partisan gerrymandering.

As a result, when civil rights plaintiffs challenge newly-drawn maps, the state can argue as a defense that it was merely seeking to maximize partisan advantage. In the South in particular, party preference is often aligned with race, with most Black people voting for Democrats.

In a separate concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime critic of the Voting Rights Act, said the ruling should "largely put an end" to a system that he saw as unlawfully dividing people into districts based on race."

So, just to clarify, Democrats were drawing maps not because they were angels and wanted to help black people - they were drawing them for PURELY partisan advantage.  Don't be a sucker.

HTH! 

Also: Your revisionist history is simply amazing at this point.  Anything else you want to make up as fact?

[supermike80]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

One of them is going to be the governor of Florida. 

Anther may be governor of Michigan

[Maximum Overkill]

2 hours ago, kilroy69 said:

open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

[Frozenbeernuts]

It's almost like Trump supporters tried to tell libs that it's not going to go the way they think.

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yeah, you clearly didn't read that ruling correctly.

Maybe this will help:

"While the court had previously assumed that states could consider race in seeking to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Alito wrote that "allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost any other context."

In justifying the court's change of course, Alito highlighted developments in recent years, including "social change" in the South, where most of the race-based redistricting challenges arise. He also cited the court's 2019 decision that paved the way to unfettered partisan gerrymandering.

As a result, when civil rights plaintiffs challenge newly-drawn maps, the state can argue as a defense that it was merely seeking to maximize partisan advantage. In the South in particular, party preference is often aligned with race, with most Black people voting for Democrats.

In a separate concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime critic of the Voting Rights Act, said the ruling should "largely put an end" to a system that he saw as unlawfully dividing people into districts based on race."

So, just to clarify, Democrats were drawing maps not because they were angels and wanted to help black people - they were drawing them for PURELY partisan advantage.  Don't be a sucker.

HTH! 

Also: Your revisionist history is simply amazing at this point.  Anything else you want to make up as fact?

ES, I’m stuck at laughing at your good humor & thanking you for the information. I myself was being sarcastic.

Part of my point though on a somewhat serious level was that the USSC (was it Mecklenburg?) said that gerrymandering for partisan advantage was just fine & further that the courts should stay out of partisan disputes. I do plead guilty to heavy doses of sarcasm though, not the first time it’s been raised, but I mean it as good natured ribbing.

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Alito highlighted

I’m a little busy today & I sense you’re an extremely well informed person on this subject. **^But: Alito is one of the most cynical jurists I’ve ever come across. “Alito highlighted” is a wide open trapdoor to ‘Anything Goes’.

[Hardcore troubadour]

19 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m a little busy today & I sense you’re an extremely well informed person on this subject. **^But: Alito is one of the most cynical jurists I’ve ever come across. “Alito highlighted” is a wide open trapdoor to ‘Anything Goes’.

What other cynical jurists have you come across? 

[seafoam1]

22 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m a little busy today & I sense you’re an extremely well informed person on this subject. **^But: Alito is one of the most cynical jurists I’ve ever come across. “Alito highlighted” is a wide open trapdoor to ‘Anything Goes’.

We always know what the liberals do. That's true. They never waiver. Never are able to see from multiple points of view. 

[HellToupee]

Looks pretty fair to me

 

[seafoam1]

It's funny that all of a sudden liberals don't like anymore what they have been doing for decades because it's not going their way this time.

[HellToupee]

This seems like a levelheaded take from Justice Roberts 

 

[seafoam1]

1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

This seems like a levelheaded take from Justice Roberts 

 

I think it's more about understanding what truth is vs. what actual racism is.

Racism is not pointing out the truth of what is actually going on in the streets of this country. 

[dogcows]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Says the guy who votes for the Democrat Party that has been as racist as they were back in the Civil War, Jim Crowe and KKK eras.  

You tigers didn't change your stripes - you just moved black people from a physical plantation to a virtual one.

This is projecting so hard…

[Tree of Knowledge]

3 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Wow. Democrats have 70 seats at risk due to this? Holy cow. Better break out the checkbooks. 

I think this falls into the FAFO category 

[SaintsInDome2006]

26 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What other cynical jurists have you come across? 

I live in Louisiana l, man. We had a chief justice in Louisiana who said that casinos don’t violate the constitutional ban on gambling. Democrat btw.

[dogcows]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s just crazy. Mandate racially balanced districts. No don’t.

Also USSC, we don’t care about gerrymandering. VA USDC: oh yeah USSC totally hates gerrymandering. Also USSC, no racial gerrymandering, but white suburban gerrymandering is ok.

The argument from day one of Roberts dismantling of the voting rights act was simple: Racism is over in America, we don’t need these laws anymore.

Not only was that false at the time, but the racism has become more open and hostile in the 2 decades since.

It’s hilarious(ly sad) that the court conservatives quote laws from the 1300s for outlawing abortion, but then claim “social change” as a reason for shredding a law passed unanimously by Congress.

If this leads to a government of minority rule, history tells us the masses will assert their will one way or the other.

[dogcows]

 

[Engorgeous George]

8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I live in Louisiana l, man. We had a chief justice in Louisiana who said that casinos don’t violate the constitutional ban on gambling. Democrat btw.

The casinos don't violate the prohibition, the gamblers who gamble in the casinos, now that's another matter.

[HellToupee]

Current mood………

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The casinos don't violate the prohibition, the gamblers who gamble in the casinos, now that's another matter.

Riiiiggghhhtttt… welcome to Louisiana.

[supermike80]

This REALLY seems like a CRISIS!!

[SaintsInDome2006]

44 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This REALLY seems like a CRISIS!!

Laws & institutions last for a really long time, & people get used to living within them & under them, even stably & happily, then they get bored & disgruntled with different aspects. And eventually people forget the underlying forces that led to the creation of those laws & institutions. When the VRA was created there was a crisis.

[Caine Mutiny]

I don’t think this matters all that much because I don’t believe there are many permanently red or blue districts anymore. Voters are going to surprise a lot of people, starting with the next election. 

[kilroy69]

7 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

I don’t think this matters all that much because I don’t believe there are many permanently red or blue districts anymore. Voters are going to surprise a lot of people, starting with the next election. 

Lets say there is a blue wave nationwide. This would give the republicans the ability to dilute it by forcing it into districts that republicans will not lose. This could result in a popular uprising among democratic voters nationwide and still stall against a red wall. The general consensus is that the dems are going to crush the republicans because of the cycle. However this gives republicans more than a fighting chance to keep the majority

[dogcows]

4 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

Lets say there is a blue wave nationwide. This would give the republicans the ability to dilute it by forcing it into districts that republicans will not lose. This could result in a popular uprising among democratic voters nationwide and still stall against a red wall. The general consensus is that the dems are going to crush the republicans because of the cycle. However this gives republicans more than a fighting chance to keep the majority

I’d like to see a national law outlawing this gerrymandering. Set up a fair, non-partisan system that every state has to adhere to.

 

[seafoam1]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I’d like to see a national law outlawing this gerrymandering. Set up a fair, non-partisan system that every state has to adhere to.

 

Ok once the conservatives are done, we stop it for good. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

The argument from day one of Roberts dismantling of the voting rights act was simple: Racism is over in America, we don’t need these laws anymore.

Not only was that false at the time, but the racism has become more open and hostile in the 2 decades since.

It’s hilarious(ly sad) that the court conservatives quote laws from the 1300s for outlawing abortion, but then claim “social change” as a reason for shredding a law passed unanimously by Congress.

If this leads to a government of minority rule, history tells us the masses will assert their will one way or the other.

Wow.  Revisionist history at its finest. You're grasping for straws to justify your racism.