Supreme Court erred in fast-tracking Callais judgment and should stop Louisiana redraw, Black voters argue

The Black voters who successfully sued Louisiana to redraw its congressional map to add another majority-minority district in 2023 — only to have that redraw struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last week’s Louisiana v. Callais decision — are now asking the Court to recall its quick order Monday clearing the way for a rushed redistricting during a paused primary election.

The plaintiffs in Ardoin v. Robinson intervened in Callais to defend the maps for which they had fought. After the Court published its opinion, the “non-African American voter” plaintiffs in Callais immediately asked for an expedited judgment in the case, which is usually issued 32 days after an opinion to allow for rehearing requests.

The majority granted that request Monday. But the judgment order completely missed — or simply ignored — the Robinson intervenors’ clearly stated opposition to allowing Louisiana to redraw its maps, their filing Tuesday argued. 

“The sole basis cited in the Order for granting Appellees’ Application and issuing the judgment forthwith was that ‘[Robinson Appellants] have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment,’” the motion contends. “However, in the second sentence of Appellants’ opposition to the Application, Appellants requested ‘the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.’”

Justice Samuel Alito granted the Callais plaintiffs’ expedited judgment request, writing that “while the Robinson appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” 

However, the Robinson appellants not only opposed the expedited judgment request in a response filed the day after the ruling, but also said the court “should afford Appellants the opportunity to reconsider seeking rehearing in the ordinary course,” the exact request Alito deemed was “not expressed” in their response. They also noted that voting in Louisiana’s primary had already begun. Gov. Jeff Landry (R) suspended the ongoing congressional election — but not the other races — following the Callais decision. 

The response cites the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision, Purcell v. Gonzalez, arguing that “federal courts may not disrupt a state’s voting rules, including electoral maps, close to an election, much less when voters are already voting.”
The Court cited Purcell in its shadow docket decision in December that stayed a lower court’s decision that found that Texas had engaged in an illlegal racial gerrymander. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” the unsigned order wrote there, about a primary scheduled in March.