Voting Rights Organizations Urge Court to End Attack on Black Representation in Louisiana’s Congressional Map

Read a PDF of our statement here.

Today, a group of voting rights organizations appeared in federal court to argue in the Louisiana redistricting case, Callais v. Louisiana, that the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in the case does not license further attacks on fair representation for Black Louisianans. After the hearing, the co-counsel organizations and the clients they represent (known as the Robinson intervenors) joined a press conference and day of action with other voting rights advocates, where they denounced the Supreme Court's destruction of the core provision of the Voting Rights Act and the Callais challengers' continuing attack on the voting rights of Black Louisianians and fair representation in the State's congressional delegation.

In April, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Callais case that struck down Louisiana's previous congressional map and eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision, Louisiana eliminated one of its two majority-Black districts. The Callais decision has also opened the door for states to enact racially discriminatory voting maps across the country, forcing one in 10 voters into a new congressional district since the 2024 elections. At today's hearing, civil rights groups argued that the repeal of the map invalidated by the Supreme Court is the end of the case, and Callais does not permit the elimination of Louisiana's only remaining opportunity district for Black voters.

"Fair representation is not a game - Black voters are not pawns to be manipulated in order to monopolize power in the hands of the few," said Sara Rohani, Assistant Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, who argued on behalf of the Robinson intervenors at the hearing today. "We cannot allow this case to continue to erode opportunities for Black voters in Louisiana. The Supreme Court's Callais ruling was shameful, but letting the Callais plaintiffs continue this case with the sole aim of totally eliminating Black voters' voices would be an utter disgrace under the law and a complete disaster for our democracy."

"Callais has already put Black voters' voice in our democracy at risk in states across the country," said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Now these plaintiffs want to finish the job in Louisiana by wiping out what remains of Black Louisianans' ability to elect candidates of their choice. This is exactly the kind of exclusion the Voting Rights Act was written to stop. Courts must not let one damaging ruling become a blank check to silence Black voters in Louisiana."

"The Callais decision has already earned its place among the most shameful chapters in America's and Louisiana's history," said Nora Ahmed, Legal Director at the ACLU of Louisiana. "But railroading the Voting Rights Act and bringing us back to an era reminiscent of Jim Crow was apparently not far enough for the plaintiffs in the Callais case. Now, they want the court to weigh in on whether to erase Black representation from Louisiana's maps altogether. We are fighting against this gamesmanship and the plaintiffs' attempt to bring a court with no jurisdiction over voters in District 2 into the mix. It is our sincere hope the Court does what we and the State have asked and that is: dismiss the lawsuit."

"Representation is key to true citizenship, because without representation how does your voice and experience show up in the policy making process?," asked Ashley Shelton, President and CEO of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. "The idea that Callais plaintiffs want to completely neuter the voices of Black and other minorities is absurd and immoral."

"It would be a massive betrayal of federal law for the court to continue to erode the Voting Rights Act's promise of fair representation," said Michael McClanahan, President of the NAACP Louisiana State Conference. "The court must not allow these new claims to proceed. They represent a malicious resurgence of the attitudes and tactics of Jim Crow - attempting to deny Black voters what remains of their representation in government."

"This attempt to completely eliminate fair representation for Black Louisianians is what happens when the Supreme Court not only permits but encourages racism to masquerade as partisan maneuvering," said the Robinson intervenors in a joint response. "Contorting this case to advance new claims is clearly an attempt to use a mutilated Voting Rights Act to steal power directly out of our hands. The erosion of the VRA will have very real consequences, and so we will continue to show up and fight at the courts, legislatures, and ballot boxes for our foundational right to elect candidates who represent our communities."

The Robinson intervenors are a group of Louisiana voters, including the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and nine individual Black voters. They are represented by LDF, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Louisiana, along with pro bono counsel.

Learn more about Louisiana v. Callais.

###

Founded in 1940, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF)is the nation's first civil rights legal organization. LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957, though it was founded under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall while he was at the NAACP. LDF's Thurgood Marshall Institute (TMI) is a division of LDF that undertakes innovative research and houses LDF's archive. In all media attributions, please refer to us as the Legal Defense Fund or LDF (do not include NAACP) and refer to the Institute as LDF's Thurgood Marshall Institute or TMI.