Skip to main content

The Governor of Louisiana Must Veto the Proposed Redistricting Maps


The governor of Louisana has a unique chance to ensure that Black Louisianans have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice to Congress. That’s why the ACLU and our coalition partners in the region are calling on Gov. Jon Bel Edwards to veto the proposed congressional and state legislative districting plans, submitted to his office by the Louisiana State Legislature.

HB 1 and SB 5, the proposed congressional districting plans passed by the Louisiana State Legislature, as well as HB 14 and SB 1, the proposed state legislative plans, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The new maps fail to provide Black voters in Louisiana an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. The failures of the maps are particularly concerning because of the population growth and shifts in Louisiana over the last 10 years.

According to the new Census data, the number of Black people in Louisiana increased by 3.78 percent between 2010 and 2020. And the total number of Black Louisiana residents over the age of 18 — the Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) — increased by 7.21 percent. Furthermore, Louisiana’s total population growth since 2010 was driven by growth in minority populations. For example, per the 2020 Census data, in the Shreveport area (including Bossier, Caddo, and De Soto Parishes), the overall population decreased by 1.3 percent, but the region’s Black population grew by 2.14 percent.

Under the current congressional district maps, Black Louisianans are severely underrepresented. Louisiana’s voting-age population is nearly one-third Black; however, Black voters in Louisiana only have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in one of the six congressional districts (i.e., 16.7 percent of the districts).

Under the current state legislative district maps, just 37 out of the 144 (25.69 percent) members of the Louisiana Legislature are Black, even though Black residents comprise 33.1 percent of the state’s population. Of these Black legislative members, all but one were elected from single-member majority-minority districts. And that single outlying district has a BVAP close to 50 percent, which is high enough to make it possible for Black voters to elect their candidate of choice. This is a direct consequence of the configuration of Louisiana’s legislative districts.

The 2020 congressional election results reflect the state’s racially polarized voting patterns. In the five districts comprised of a majority of white voters, there were three elections in which voters had a choice between Black and white congressional candidates. In each, the white majority elected white candidates, defeating the Black-preferred candidates and underscoring the importance of enacting more majority-minority districts.

Under the current congressional and state legislative maps, Black voters in Louisiana have less opportunity to elect candidates of their choice than white voters. Instead of using the redistricting process as an opportunity to correct the long-standing dilution of Black voting strength in Louisiana, the state legislature introduced HB 1, SB 5, HB 14, and SB 1, all of which would further entrench and exacerbate the dilution of Black voting strength in the state over the next 10 years.

In all 50 states, especially Louisiana, representation is important. It not only promotes the trust needed for the successful relationship between governors and the governed in any democratic society, but also promotes fairness. To live up to the tenets of a representative democracy, the Louisiana State Legislature must reflect the richly diverse population it serves.

We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate today

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...