On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court issued a stay order, effectively blocking a lower court decision that would have prevented the use of a newly drawn Louisiana congressional district map, comprising two majority black districts in a six-district state. This order ensures that this version of the map will be employed for the 2024 election, but also allows for the chance that it might be eliminated in a forthcoming appeal.
Controversy arose over Louisiana’s congressional map following the 2020 census. The map was redrawn to include only one majority-black district despite the state’s over 30% black population distributed over six congressional districts. This version of the map for the 2022 elections was contested by black voters and civil rights activists, accusing it of violating the Voting Rights Act. After being ruled unconstitutional at the district level and subsequently stalled on appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and ordered the map to be redrawn.
After Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry authorized the new map with two majority-black districts, a group of white voters promptly sued, claiming the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The use of this map was subsequently blocked by the legislature’s use of race as the major basis for the boundaries. In response, the plaintiffs, along with the State of Louisiana, requested the Supreme Court to block the lower court’s ruling to avert voter confusion in the impending election. Surprisingly, the order did not contain any reasoning to warrant the stay but referenced the case Purcell v. Gonzalez, setting the precedent for the utilization of challenged maps in the face of an imminent election.
The case Allen v. Milligan, Moore v. Harper, and South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander have invoked this “Purcell Principle” in recent times to address cases concerning unconstitutional congressional maps—allowing such maps to endure an election season until the merits of their individual cases can be resolved.
However, from the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, a dissent emerged against the stay order. Justice Jackson stated that the Purcell Principle was being wielded improperly, given that the election remained six months away. Conversely, during the Purcell case, the election was just five weeks away yet warranted court intervention. “Rather than wading in now, I would have let the District Court’s remedial process run its course before considering whether our emergency intervention was warranted.”, commented Justice Jackson.
The order, while solving the map issue for the 2024 elections, has reignited a series of discussions pondering over whether and when the Supreme Court should intervene in electoral cases progressing through the federal court system.