红杏视频

WASHINGTON, D.C. 鈥� Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order to reargue the case of Louisiana v. Callais and will later issue an order scheduling the argument and specifying any additional questions that will need to be addressed in the case. Louisiana鈥檚 current map with two majority-Black districts remains in effect. The re-argument of the case will likely occur during the fall. Louisiana鈥檚 current congressional map, known as SB8, was drawn in response to a separate lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin (later Robinson v. Landry). In that earlier case, brought by the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and nine individual Black voters, a federal court in Baton Rouge found that Louisiana鈥檚 2022 map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by packing Black voters into a single majority-Black district and diluting the voting strength of Black voters in other districts. That part of the decision was upheld by two separate panels of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Presented with these decisions, the State faced a choice between drawing a new map itself or accepting a court-imposed map, over which lawmakers would have little or no control. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and legislative leaders determined it was in the State鈥檚 best interest to develop their own map that could satisfy the VRA and the courts. In January 2024, SB8 became law, but it did not follow the plan that had been presented to the court in Robinson. Most notably, it was drawn to protect powerful incumbents in Louisiana鈥檚 congressional delegation, including U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, and unite communities with shared interests along the Red River and I-49 corridor. Shortly after SB8鈥檚 enactment, a group of self-described 鈥渘on-African American voters鈥� challenged the map as a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment in Callais v. Landry. They claimed the map violated the Equal Protection Clause鈥檚 prohibition against the use of race as the predominant motivating factor in map drawing, absent a compelling reason. The plaintiffs from Robinson intervened as defendants in the case to protect the new voting opportunities SB8 provided to Black Louisianans and decades of precedent, in which the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that it is not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander for states to remedy Voting Rights Act violations with new maps that also consider other factors like incumbency protection. After a divided three-judge district court panel struck down SB8, the Robinson clients and state defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending its resolution of the appeal, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court鈥檚 ruling, leaving SB8 in place for the time being. As a result, the 2024 election went forward under SB8, allowing Black Louisianans to elect their preferred candidate in two congressional districts. The Robinson clients and counsel provided the following statements in response to the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision today: "Before this case ever began, we had already won a hard-fought legal battle, proving that the legislature鈥檚 initial map, like Louisiana鈥檚 maps for generations before, illegally diluted Black voters鈥� political power,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, National Legal Director for the 红杏视频. 鈥淭hanks to the Supreme Court's order from May 2024, which put the district court鈥檚 injunction on hold, the fair and legal map the Louisiana legislature enacted in response to our litigation remains in place while the case continues. We will be back next term to once again defend the new map and the representation Black voters deserve." 鈥淎 fair and equitable congressional map has always been our North Star,鈥� said Ashley Shelton, President/CEO of Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision deferring the case does not shake our focus on that goal. We will continue to advocate for a map that reflects our communities and upholds the hope of true and substantive political representation, and we look forward to using this opportunity to continue to build Black political power for our beloved communities across Louisiana and the nation.鈥� 鈥淏lack voters in Louisiana continue to face persistent and documented discrimination. A map with two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of choice, as SB8 has, is critical to ensuring Black voters can have their voices heard,鈥� said Stuart Naifeh, Supreme Court oralist in Callais and redistricting manager for the Legal Defense Fund (LDF). 鈥淭hat is the promise of the Voting Rights Act, and we will continue to fight on behalf of our clients and Black voters across the State of Louisiana to achieve a fair congressional map." 鈥淣ow we have another chance to make sure that the promise of equal representation for Louisiana鈥檚 Black population is fulfilled,鈥� said Alanah Odoms, 红杏视频 of Louisiana Executive Director. 鈥淢ake no mistake: Black Louisianans are entitled to the same fair and representative maps as voters anywhere in this country. We remain steadfast in our commitment to that pursuit 鈥� until equality is not just promised, but realized.鈥� 鈥淥ur fight continues,鈥� said Michael McClanahan, President of the NAACP Louisiana State Conference. 鈥淲e know that justice must be served. From the beginning of this process, we have shown it is not only possible but essential to have fair representation for Black communities. We will continue to advocate for fair maps and to ensure the promise of the Voting Rights Act is upheld. We won鈥檛 stop until victory is won.鈥� 鈥淭oday is not the end of our journey. The fight for an equitable democracy continues,鈥� said Alora Thomas-Lundborg of the Harvard Election Law Clinic. 鈥淰oters in Louisiana took a stand for their rights and we will work to ensure that the Court hears them and everyone who believes in the continued dream of an equitable American democracy.鈥� 鈥淭his case is critically important not just for our clients, but for every Black voter in Louisiana and across this country who believes in the promise of equal representation, and today鈥檚 order calling for re-argument does nothing to change that,鈥� said Tracie Washington of the Louisiana Justice Institute. 鈥淲e remain committed to fighting for fair maps and a democracy where every vote counts. I want to thank our courageous clients, who put their faith in this process, and my remarkable co-counsel, who have poured their hearts into this case. Our work continues and our resolve is unwavering.鈥� The Robinson appellants 鈥� the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and nine individual Black voters 鈥� are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Louisiana, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Louisiana attorneys John Adcock and Tracie Washington.

The 红杏视频 has served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.

COLUMBIA 鈥� Nonpartisan civil rights organizations argued before the South Carolina Supreme Court today that the state constitution forbids partisan gerrymandering, or the rigging of electoral maps to protect a political party鈥檚 advantage in elections. Republican state lawmakers have repeatedly stated that they gerrymandered South Carolina鈥檚 First Congressional District map to 鈥減ull the First red鈥� and meet a specific goal for Republican vote share in the district. In the lawsuit League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander, the League and its legal team argue that these bald-faced admissions fly in the face of the South Carolina Constitution. "South Carolinians have the right not just to vote, but to cast a vote that genuinely reflects the interests of their community," said Nancy Williams, President of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina. "The existing map was drawn not to give voice to voters but to protect politicians. The League of Women Voters of South Carolina is proud to fight for equality of political power for all South Carolina voters, and we hope the court will issue an order that allows us to have a true voice in how we are governed." 鈥淪outh Carolina鈥檚 constitution protects voters from having their voices manipulated for partisan gain,鈥� said Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the 红杏视频 Voting Rights Project. 鈥淟egislators鈥� admission that they drew the State鈥檚 congressional map to entrench one political party in power is not just undemocratic 鈥� it鈥檚 against the law. Today, we鈥檝e asked the Court to restore the State Constitution鈥檚 promise of free and fair elections where every South Carolinian鈥檚 vote counts the same.鈥� 鈥淰oters should be appalled. Our state鈥檚 leading politicians believe that redistricting serves primarily to serve their own interests rather than the interests of the voters themselves,鈥� said Allen Chaney, Legal Director of the 红杏视频 of South Carolina. 鈥淭hey argued today in court that our State Constitution provides no check on that antidemocratic result. This is hopefully something that the Supreme Court will not embrace.鈥� The legal team filed the lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina on July 29, 2024. With today鈥檚 oral arguments, attorneys are asking the state鈥檚 highest court to bring the Congressional district map into compliance with the state constitution. The South Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, states: 鈥淎ll elections shall be free and open, and every inhabitant of this State possessing the qualifications provided for in this Constitution shall have an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.鈥� In other states with 鈥渇ree and open鈥� or 鈥渇ree and equal鈥� election clauses in their constitutions, courts have found that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable at the state level, including in Pennsylvania (LWV of PA v. Commonwealth), New Mexico (Grisham v. Van Soelen), and Kentucky (Graham v. Adams). This case is separate from the racial gerrymandering case previously filed in South Carolina, Alexander v. SC NAACP, which argued that mapmakers were illegally using the race of voters as a proxy for partisan advantage in District 1. That case ended with a 6-3 loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2024. LWV-SC v. Alexander is built partly on statements that the state鈥檚 highest officials made in the course of the previous case. Attorney John Gore, who represented the South Carolina lawmakers responsible for drawing the map, said the following in his opening arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court: 鈥淭he panel acknowledged that the General Assembly pursued a political goal of increasing District 1鈥檚 Republican vote share. It achieved that goal by moving Republicans into the district and Democrats out of the district.鈥� The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives South Carolina鈥檚 Congressional district map an F for partisan fairness and an F for competitiveness. Another nonpartisan site, PlanScore, notes that South Carolina鈥檚 House redistricting plan was more skewed than 98% of enacted plans nationwide. The result? Congressional District 1, a district traditionally anchored in Charleston that was once considered competitive, now skews so heavily Republican that elections are effectively decided in the Republican primary. Nationwide studies have shown that this pattern of partisan gerrymandering, widely practiced by both parties in states where they hold power, produces less responsive representatives who pursue more extreme social policies. More information and filings from the case are available on the 红杏视频 of South Carolina website. Video of today鈥檚 oral arguments will be archived on the S.C. Judicial Branch website. For more information about partisan gerrymandering, see the attached glossary of terms, statistics, and studies.

Virginia permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the governor restores their rights. This lawsuit鈥攂rought by the 红杏视频 of Virginia and co-counsel partners鈥攁rgues that the policy violates the Readmissions Act of 1870, which bars Virginia from denying the vote based on convictions that didn鈥檛 exist at common law in 1870. The state tried to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, but the courts rejected that argument. Now, the case moves forward with the potential to restore voting rights to thousands of Virginians.