* The ruling is here if you need it. SCOTUSblog…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections. Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.”
The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. The first map that the state adopted, in 2022, had one majority-Black district out of the six allotted to the state. A group of Black voters – who comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population – went to federal court, where they alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in voting. […]
In this case, Alito said, Louisiana’s goal in adopting the 2024 map “was racial”: the state enacted it in the wake of the lower court’s finding that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and sought to avoid having the court impose a different map that would have created a second majority-Black district but which would also “have imperiled one of the influential incumbents the legislature sought to protect.” […]
In a somber tone, Kagan read a summary of her 48-page dissent from the bench – a signal of her strong disagreement with the majority’s ruling. “The Voting Rights Act,” she wrote “is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.’” But the requirements that the court imposes on Wednesday, she contended, “will effectively insulate any practice, including any districting scheme, said by a State to have any race-neutral justification. That justification can sound in traditional districting criteria, or else can sound in politics and partisanship. As to the latter, the State need do nothing more than announce a partisan gerrymander,” she said. “Assuming the State has left behind no smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive (an almost fanciful prospect), Section 2 will play no role.”
* Gov. JB Pritzker was asked today about the ruling’s impact on Illinois…
I talked to lawyers this morning, people who are experts in this, who’ve said that everything that we have in Illinois now is constitutional, even under the new ruling. So I’m sure there will be people who try to attack it. But the reality is that if you read through the Supreme Court decision, I’m told that it validates the maps that are already in place.
* I also consulted with an election law attorney who has been involved in redistricting here…
When drawing a legislative map, the General Assembly must adhere to the U.S. Constitution and federal law, in addition to the Illinois Constitution and state law. For at least a decade it has been clear that the 14th and 15th Amendments prohibit using race as a predominant factor in drawing a map. In 2011, Illinois adopted the Illinois Voting Rights Act which urges the creation of crossover districts, coalition districts, or influence districts “in addition and subordinate to any requirements or obligations imposed by the United States Constitution, any federal law regarding redistricting Legislative Districts or Representative Districts, including but not limited to the federal Voting Rights Act, and the Illinois Constitution.” For the last 2 cycles, the General Assembly produced a document publicly explaining how and why districts were drawn, and it was clear that race was not the predominant or only critieria used to draw the maps.
The most recent explanation for how districts are drawn can be read here or here.
* The East St. Louis NAACP tried to overturn the latest remap because map-makers diluted Black voting strength in the 114th House District. A federal court rebuffed the claim…
In the end, East St. Louis NAACP Plaintiffs’ evidence amounts to a claim that “the district’s shape, its splitting of towns and counties, and its high [White] voting population” together with various public statements that legislators were aware of race shows that race predominated the 2021 legislative redistricting cycle. See Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 243. The Supreme Court’s decisions since Cromartie II tell us that this direct and circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a finding that race predominated over politics where, as here, the record is replete with political and other traditional justifications for the districts that the legislature drew. Accordingly, we reject East St. Louis NAACP Plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering challenge to HD 114.
Interestingly enough, the incumbent Black House Democratic member went on to lose to a White Republican in 2022. The House Democrats have not yet been able to flip that seat back.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:08 pm:
Translation: The MAGA SCOTUS has basically said partisan gerrymandering is all good - have at it.
Outside of that, their ruling is viewed as further nullifying the Voting Rights Act.
- Steve - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
Delia Ramirez’s district is rationally drawn and passes constitutional muster.
- Leatherneck - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
=Interestingly enough, the incumbent Black House Democratic member went on to lose to a White Republican in 2022=
So they could protect Jay Hoffman.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:37 pm:
===Delia Ramirez’s district is rationally drawn and passes constitutional muster===
It has so far. Maybe try suing next time.
- low level - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:37 pm:
You would think that Republicans would want to pack as many minority voters into as few districts as possible.
- Center Drift - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 1:59 pm:
Anyone who thinks the map for Rep. meets the definition of compact does not know the meaning of the word. However the problem is that neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court has ever provided an operational definition. Thus we have snake districts here in Illinois and one party rule.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:06 pm:
===and one party rule===
Last I checked, the state’s boundaries haven’t changed since 1818.
- Perhaps - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:11 pm:
This ruling would appear to directly contradict the bill and rational that Speaker Welch presented last week.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:27 pm:
Sure reads that way for the Governor. Use all the politics you want just don’t use race.
- JB13 - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:30 pm:
– it was clear that race was not the predominant or only critieria used to draw the maps –
I think we all know what the predominant factor was. So in that sense, the maps are safe.
But if you pass the Speaker’s amendment, you better throw a party quick. It’s gonna last about as long as snowman in summer.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:32 pm:
Will we have to pass the all-Democratic map that they put out as a joke in order to get the Supremes to admit that there is a limit to partisan gerrymandering?
- H-W - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:34 pm:
@ Norseman
That is how I read this excerpt too. It seems to suggest as long as no one says the word race, then it cannot be assumed that race matters, even when the practice produces racial disparities.
Justice ebbs and flows, and we are in a period where justice is privileging some more than others. But King was right - the arch of justice does bend toward the light in the long run.
- Mason County - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:54 pm:
Meanwhile the larger issue of gerrymandering in this state continues. Take a good look at some of our Illinois Congressional districts. They make the original 1813 Cartoon “The Gerry Mander’ look reasonable.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 2:56 pm:
===Meanwhile the larger issue of gerrymandering in this state continues===
According to the Supreme Court, this is not an issue. /s
- Mason County - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 3:03 pm:
=According to the Supreme Court, this is not an issue. /s=
Absolutely true. Well aware of the Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) decision. Does not change my opinion that this is not a healthy practice for our elections process.
- here we go again - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 3:31 pm:
I could have sworn I remember Dems bragging about a congressional district specifically drawn to guarantee a Hispanic winning. Primary focus on skin color/national origin. Definition of racist. But nice try governor.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 3:33 pm:
=Meanwhile the larger issue of gerrymandering in this state continues.=
You may want to read the news outside of Illinois and consult a US map. It ain’t just here bro.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 3:39 pm:
=== I could have sworn I remember Dems bragging about a congressional district specifically drawn to guarantee a Hispanic winning===
That district is 45 percent Latino https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd118/cd_based/ST17/CD118_IL03.pdf
- Mason County - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 4:08 pm:
=- JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 3:33 pm:
=Meanwhile the larger issue of gerrymandering in this state continues.=
You may want to read the news outside of Illinois and consult a US map. It ain’t just here bro.=
Not your ‘bro.’ But thank you for stating the obvious.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 4:51 pm:
In my experience, it is easy for people to forget you after you enact protections of their civil rights, but they quickly remember after you take it away.
Gas has gone from $3.10 a gallon under Biden to $4.27 a gallon under Trump, and if he does not get it back down bynLabor Day and make other serious headway, I do not think it will matter how much gerrymandering the GOP does.
But I don’t expect this issue to shape elections until 2032.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 4:57 pm:
Since this state is so Blue and looks that way for the foreseeable future, maybe the Democrats could actually draw a nice square and rectangular map not dividing towns and still stay in power. That would be nice
- Casper The Ghost Bus - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 5:35 pm:
– draw a nice square and rectangular map not dividing towns –
You might want to take a look at municipal maps. There are no square and retangle munis.
- Leslie Dimas - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 5:51 pm:
I previously worked for JPM & BOA, one thing we were specifically taught about in certifications & recertifications at the bank was the history of redlining. I honestly believe just as redlining during the Great Depression robbed Black & immigrant neighborhoods of economic power & generational wealth, today’s decision is about the blatant attempt to gut political power. We all know that economic and political exclusion reinforce each other. Here we are 91 years after redlining was first implemented in Chicago, ONCE AGAIN discussing the specific targeting of Black & immigrant families. I am just stunned, enraged & frightened to see history repeating itself. We all have to step it up and do more to prevent history from repeating itself. .
- low level - Wednesday, Apr 29, 26 @ 10:49 pm:
==draw a nice square and rectangular map not dividing towns and still stay in power. That would be nice==
Right. So one district has 1000 voters while the one next to it has 50. Are you really that dense or do you just play that online?
- Name name name - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 5:41 am:
Low level, you’re only thinking about “packing”. If the minority population could have an actual fighting chance, that’s when you see “cracking”, where they split the minority community up into different districts so they can never have a majority or close.
But unless someone outright says they are doing it because of race, no Voting Rights Act case, based on this SCOTUS opinion.