2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[Oryxslayer]

The state and AA groups (some old plaintiffs some new) are fighting to defend the map as drawn, so there is a very possible situation where the map gets used cause it's just too late to get a sufficient outcome. A reversal of the liberal application of Purcell from 2022.

In terms of SOCTUS, this is a racial gerrymandering claim. SCOTUS has a racial gerrymandering suit before it in the SC case, which approaches things from different directions. In SC the Dems want clean lines, here it's a specific Republican. Which I think shows why it's very possible they rule positively, Racial gerrymandering, unlike the mostly-dem Section 2 VRA claims, is a corrective tool used by both sides. S it's likely whatever ruling comes down in the summer on SC effects this, which is why people are asking them to take a look - a Conservative-led ruling on racial gerrymandering benefits the plaintiffs here.

In terms of other outcomes, the court basically said in their opinion that that is not their job to decide if LA can have two AA seats....which seemingly has already been decided by other courts. We also wouldn't be going back to the 2022 map since when Landry signed the 2-AA map it became the default, and that old map similarly would fail under the standards of this ruling. The most likely outcome if there is to be mapping, at least right now, is just making things more sensible. There is plenty of history of such cases applying to VRA seats: MCI on twitter right now has a few such examples of tentacles in Florida that became sensible performing access districts AA seats, at the cost of not having as many minority voters as in the tentacle.

That's what it looks like right now. Developments may change things. But Graves went in to protect himself not 5-1, and he proved ulterior motives distracted from just creating a second AA seat, motives that subordinated traditional redistricting principles.

 In fact, as I have shown in this thread before, the diagonal can be made sensible, you just gotta pair Johnson and Letlow in a northern seat. Which precludes that option if it isn't a special master doing the mapping. So far the presented clean outcome though is the L shape AA district, something Graves knows likely gives him a home. Though giving power to special masters over racial gerrymandering is often a throw of the dice - maps sometimes change radically to follow communities. In this situation there is a chance that means a seat for the areas east of BR which pairs Scalise and Graves, which would be an outcome adverse to the congressman who backed this suit...

[Oryxslayer]

That actually eliminates Scalise, not Graves.  Check where they live. It's what I mean by giving a special master power in racial gerrymandering tends to be a throw of the dice political actors prefer to avoid.

But it is another example of how Scalise deciding to retire at the last minute,  given his health issues and the the House chaos that has pushed others out, would have made both the initial and new situation much simpler.




Also, as a sign of just how give and take things are in LA, Landry tonight signed the court map into law, finally concluding a saga that began a decade ago.

[Oryxslayer]

Seems extremely likely this gets Purcelled away and they use the legislature's new map at least for 2024.  The longer term question is whether SCOTUS rules that VRA Section 2 no longer applies to redistricting (perhaps this comes back up in the 2031 mapping cycle?).  That would be an earthquake.

That's a very long term question, likely depending on new future justices. This is cause the current court has said no to this, and for all the GOP cope to try and woo Kav his statements were clearly not intended to be immediate but rather distant in scope. It's also notable cause the court has had many attempts to overturn victorious section 2 cases appealed to it since Milligan and has rejected to hear them all.


Also, reminder this is a 14th Amendment racial gerrymandering suit (see the SC SCOTUS case on this topic) that seeks to correct for abnormal mapping techniques unnecessarily used in service of Section 2. Tidying up access districts has a rich history, and for now that seems to be the direction of travel.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1786577590301385123?t=-mZZ101vFHO4N-sXhYknqQ&am...

On the topic of hypothetical master maps not doing what Graves wants...

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1787917682681000323?t=ctGut2EZ2P8eEG4kWrgkKA&am...

Also today in the separate state leg case

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1787925782054023184?t=Z73ZBQVnJVtwIIx5-IqXXA&am...

[Oryxslayer]

as no doubt mentioned in other parts of the forum, the Supreme Court says "use the 2024 map for at least 2024" without saying much about using it in 2026

Notably the liberals want the process to  have moved forward,  and the conservatives stuck to the purcell rule. Well, if nothing else,  the court stuck to the principle they set in 2021/2 even when the shoe is on the other partisans foot.

With this, the congressional maps are basically in place for November.  Even if the court rules for the plaintiffs in SC, they agreed to a potenial delay of relief after the deadlines there earlier.

[Oryxslayer]

When was the last time a “this map is probably unconstitutional, but you have to use it for now” decision actually favored Democrats?

You have to go very far back, cause the "use it for now" part is recent. It's only under the current conservative court that Purcell has been reinterpreted to be so encompassing in what it covers. You don't have to go that far back to 2016 when the Supreme Court instead ordered all normal election stuff delayed cause NC needed to remap.

The closest thing you can get is maps that were specifically drawn for a single cycle and everyone expected to change, it just took a while for the courts to get done with them.



And again, this probably isn't a pure Democrat benefit: with the SoS's weird/illegal attempt to offer the 2022 map as an alternative doa, 2 African American districts still seems the solution. Just neater. Graves is the real big loser and Johnson/Letlow the big winners. With proven results in 2025 to point at, its going to be even harder to go backwards in terms of access, and there will be time for the incumbents to move or retire  if their seats change.