States act after Supreme Court narrows race use in redistricting
Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that had been majority Black, states began responding to the decision that significantly limits the use of race when drawing voting districts. The ruling weakened a Civil Rights-era legal framework that has been used to boost minority representation in Congress, and it arrived amid legislative scheduling that different states had prepared around for weeks.
In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had called for a special legislative session expecting the Supreme Court would rule as it did in the Louisiana case. Hours after the decision, Florida’s Republican-led Legislature approved new U.S. House districts that the state’s leaders said could help the GOP win up to four additional seats in the November midterms.
DeSantis told lawmakers in a letter Monday that “Properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from divvying up the citizenry based in whole or in part upon race.” He also pointed to a 2010 Florida constitutional amendment approved by voters that prohibits districts from being drawn to deny or diminish the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice, while DeSantis said he considers that amendment to be unconstitutional.
Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, said the Supreme Court’s decision does not automatically undo state constitutional protections against racial discrimination in voting districts, leaving the legal questions unresolved even as states adjust maps quickly.
Mississippi moved in a different rhythm, with Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, announcing late last week that he would call a special legislative session to redraw voting districts for the Mississippi Supreme Court. Reeves said the session would begin 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Louisiana case.
Mississippi officials have faced a prior court order directing the state to redraw its Supreme Court voting districts. A federal judge had ordered the changes after finding the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, and Mississippi lawmakers had been waiting for a Louisiana-case decision before moving forward. Reeves said in his proclamation that the Supreme Court’s ruling would offer guidance for whether “race-conscious redistricting” violates the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana’s response hinged on timing. State lawmakers had voted last year to delay Louisiana’s primaries from April 18 to May 16 to make time to respond to a Supreme Court decision on the state’s congressional districts that were at issue in Wednesday’s ruling. Early voting is to begin Saturday, and it was unclear Wednesday whether Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature could attempt to redraw congressional districts ahead of the November general election.
In a statement, House Speaker Phillip DeVillier and Senate President Cameron Henry said they were reviewing the ruling and consulting with others “to “determine next steps to be taken in the best interests of Louisiana voters and our state.” Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said he was speaking with leaders to figure out the state’s options.
Alabama signaled both legal momentum and logistical limits. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the Supreme Court’s decision and said he would act quickly to apply it to the state’s redistricting efforts. Marshall said Alabama’s congressional maps should reflect “the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids,” even though the state’s primaries are set for May 19 and Gov. Kay Ivey said Alabama was “not in position to have a special session at this time.”
Tennessee’s timeline looked less immediate. After the Supreme Court ruling, Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who is running for governor, said on social media Wednesday that the Republican-controlled legislature should reconvene and redraw Tennessee’s only Democratic congressional district centered on Memphis, which is majority Black. Republican House and Senate leaders said they were discussing the possibility, but Senate Speaker Randy McNally said there were obstacles, including that the candidate qualifying period had ended in March and the primary is in August, making mid-cycle redistricting a logistical challenge.
Illinois, meanwhile, showed how lawmakers could respond by changing state-level constitutional language. Fearing the Supreme Court would undermine the Voting Rights Act, the Democratic-led Illinois House last week approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would add protections for race-based redistricting. The measure would prioritize drawing legislative districts that ensure voters have the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice “on account of race,” and it would rank “racial coalition or influence districts” higher than districts that are contiguous or compact.
But Illinois Senate President Don Harmon said Wednesday the amendment would not pass this session. Harmon said lawmakers wanted legal experts to review the court ruling first and argued, “The last thing we want is to act in haste and risk unintended consequences down the road,” adding, “Too much is at stake for too many.”