New York enters Supreme Court congressional redistricting case

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a Louisiana case about redistricting, racial gerrymandering, and federal oversight. On Monday, New York and 19 other states filed an amicus brief supporting Louisiana and its map, while criticizing a push to change the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) from Alabama.

“Voters should be empowered to pick their representatives, not the other way around,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James when announcing the filing in the case of "Louisiana v. Callais," which you can read at the bottom of this story. “My office is co-leading this amicus brief to ensure that voters are always accurately and fairly represented at all levels of government.”

At issue is Louisiana's current district plan, S.B. 8, which replaced the earlier H.B. 1. A federal court had found that H.B. 1 likely violated Section 2 of the VRA because it only had one majority-Black district. It disenfranchised Black voters by drawing borders that packed many of them into the single district while dispersing others. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits racial discrimination in voting, including creating districts that dilute minority representation.

Section 2 is supposed to ensure that minority voters have equal opportunities in elections, as outlined in the 1986 SCOTUS case "Gingles." So, because it didn't meet the legal standard for fair representation, Louisiana created S.B. 8, which included an additional majority-Black congressional district.

But S.B. 8 came under scrutiny in turn. A group of “non-African American voters,” according to James' office, sued the state in the Western District of Louisiana, calling the second majority-Black district unconstitutional. They argued that S.B. 8 represented a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

A divided lower court agreed that race had improperly played a part in its design and ruled S.B. 8 unconstitutional. That left Louisiana trapped between conflicting court orders, according to James and her 20-state coalition.

The amicus brief argued that the lower court ruling infringed on the states' Constitutional right to draw their own congressional and legislative districts. It said that Louisiana followed federal orders when drawing S.B. 8, based on evidence that the VRA required changes.

The attorneys general also want the high court to reject a push by Alabama to change Section 2. They said that the VRA framework has already been settled and represents a precedent. And they pointed to "Milligan," 2023 SCOTUS ruling against Alabama's position and reaffirming "Gingles." They've already found that it's the responsibility of Congress to change the VRA, not the responsibility of federal courts.

Alabama wants a narrower, textual interpretation, limiting Section 2 to voter registration and barriers to participation. But making such chaotic changes to established precedent would create a spate of lawsuits and disrupt elections nationwide, per the brief. States like New York would need to review and potentially rewrite sections of state law that rely on the precedents set by "Gingles" and the VRA, a potentially expensive process.

James co-lead the filing alongside Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. Besides Louisiana and Alabama, the other states involved with the amicus brief were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Take a look at the amicus brief below: