Redistricting in Louisiana

in Louisiana

Fiscal Budgets Louisiana state budget and finances Tax policy in Louisiana Finance Financial regulation in Louisiana Pensions Public pensions in Louisiana Pension health in Louisiana Civil liberties Affirmative action in Louisiana Campaign finance requirements in Louisiana Campaign finance requirements for Louisiana ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Louisiana Education Charter schools in Louisiana Higher education in Louisiana Public education in Louisiana School choice in Louisiana Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Louisiana Ballot access requirements for political parties in Louisiana Political parties in Louisiana Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Louisiana Redistricting in Louisiana Voting in Louisiana Energy and Environment Energy policy in Louisiana Fracking in Louisiana Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Louisiana Endangered species in Louisiana Environmental policy in Louisiana Healthcare Healthcare policy in Louisiana Medicaid spending in Louisiana Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Louisiana Immigration Immigration in Louisiana

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Louisiana's six United States Representatives and 145 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[1][2][3][4]

Louisiana was apportioned six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Louisiana after the 2020 census.

On May 15, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an April 30 ruling by the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana striking down the state's congressional map. As a result, the map was used for Louisiana’s 2024 congressional elections.^[5] According to ScotusBlog,

Gov. Jeff Landry signed the congressional map into law on January 22 after a special legislative session. The state House of Representatives voted 86-16 and the state Senate voted 27-11 to adopt this congressional map on January 19.^[7][8]

According to NPR, "Under the new map, Louisiana's 2nd District, which encompasses much of New Orleans and surrounding areas, will have a Black population of about 53%. Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter represents that district, which has been Louisiana's only majority-Black district for several years. Louisiana's 6th District now stretches from parts of Shreveport to Baton Rouge and will have a Black population of about 56%."^[9]

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana struck down the state's legislative maps and declared them to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act.^[10][11] According to the ruling, the court found the following:

Click here for more information.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Louisiana
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Louisiana
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Louisiana's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.^[12][13]

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[14][15][16]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^[16]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[16]

State-based requirements[edit]

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[16][17]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[16][17]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[16][17]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[16][17]

Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[18]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering[edit]

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[1][19]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Recent court decisions[edit]

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)[edit]

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[23] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[24] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[25]

Moore v. Harper (2023)[edit]

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[26] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[27]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)[edit]

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[28]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.^[29]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.^[30][31][32]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.^{[33][34][5][35]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.^[36][37][38]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.^{[39][40][41][42]}

Race and ethnicity[edit]

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Louisiana was home to one congressional majority-minority district.^[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.^[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.^[2][3][4]

State process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Louisiana, both congressional and state legislative districts are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor. In the event that the legislature is unable to approve state legislative district boundaries, the state supreme court must draw the lines. There is no such practice that applies to congressional districts.^[44]

The state legislature has adopted guidelines for redistricting. These guidelines suggest that both congressional and state legislative districts be contiguous and "respect recognized political boundaries and the natural geography of the state to the extent practicable." These guidelines are non-binding; as such, the legislature may alter them at its discretion.^[44]

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting[edit]

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Louisiana, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps[edit]

Congressional districts[edit]

See also: United States congressional delegations from Louisiana

Louisiana comprises six congressional districts. The table below lists Louisiana's current U.S. Representatives.

State legislative maps[edit]

See also: Louisiana State Senate and Louisiana House of Representatives

Louisiana comprises 39 state Senate districts and 105 state House districts. State senators and representatives are elected every four years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle[edit]

Redistricting after the 2020 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Louisiana after the 2020 census

Louisiana was apportioned six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[45]

Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map enacted in 2024[edit]

On May 15, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an April 30 ruling by the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana striking down the state's congressional map. As a result, the map was used for Louisiana’s 2024 congressional elections.^[5] According to ScotusBlog,

Gov. Jeff Landry signed the congressional map into law on January 22 after a special legislative session. The state House of Representatives voted 86-16 and the state Senate voted 27-11 to adopt this congressional map on January 19.^[46][47]

According to NPR, "Under the new map, Louisiana's 2nd District, which encompasses much of New Orleans and surrounding areas, will have a Black population of about 53%. Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter represents that district, which has been Louisiana's only majority-Black district for several years. Louisiana's 6th District now stretches from parts of Shreveport to Baton Rouge and will have a Black population of about 56%."^[48]

On November 10, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2022 injunction that blocked the implementation of Louisiana’s congressional district maps, for violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of African American voters. The court also issued a deadline for the state to enact new maps for the 2024 election cycle.^[49] On November 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana extended the deadline for the creation of new maps that comply with the Voting Rights Act to January 30, 2024.^[50] Gov. Jeff Landry called a special session of the Louisiana state legislature on January 15, 2024--days after he assumed office on January 8--to draw new maps in compliance with the court's order.^[51]

Reactions to 2024 congressional map[edit]

After signing Louisiana's new congressional map into law on January 22, 2024, Gov. Landry wrote in a statement on X, "I just signed SB 8, HB 16, and HB 17 into law ... Today, we began the process of necessary structural change to our election system, allowing for a cleaner and simpler final ballot, and we took the pen out of the hand of a non-elected judge and placed it in the hands of the people."^[52]

According to the Louisiana Illuminator, a group of voters filed a lawsuit on February 1, 2024, to challenge Louisiana's new congressional map. The voters alleged that the additional majority-Black district created by the map violated their rights and wrote, “The State has engaged in explicit, racial segregation of voters and intentional discrimination against voters based on race ... The State has drawn lines between neighbors and divided communities. In most cases, the lines separate African American and non- African American voters from their communities and assign them to Districts with dominating populations far away.”^[53]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Louisiana’s 2024 congressional elections.

Congressional map enacted in 2022[edit]

On June 26, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin's (R) appeal of a federal district court decision that held that Louisiana's congressional district map should include an additional majority-minority district.^[54] The Supreme Court also lifted an earlier stay of the federal court's ruling and allowed the case to proceed before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.^[54] The court's order said, "This will allow the matter to proceed before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review in the ordinary course and in advance of the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana."^[54]

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court had stayed the federal district court ruling that struck down Louisiana's congressional district boundaries. It also granted certiorari in the case and held it in abeyance pending the court's decision in Milligan v. Merrill, which also involved a challenge to a redistricting map under the Voting Rights Act.^[55] This stay meant that the map adopted by the legislature in March 2022 was used for the 2022 elections.^[55]

On June 9, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an administrative stay of the district court's ruling pending further proceedings, and on June 12, 2022, that same court vacated that stay and denied the motions to stay the district court's decision pending appeal.^[56][57]

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down the state's congressional map on June 6, 2022, and enjoined the state from using the districts for the 2022 elections. The court's ruling said, "The appropriate remedy in this context is a remedial congressional redistricting plan that includes an additional majority-Black congressional district."^[58] Louisiana had enacted a new congressional map on March 30, 2022, when the legislature overrode Gov. John Bel Edwards’ (D) veto of legislation establishing the new districts.

The state Senate had voted to override the congressional map, 27-11, with all ‘yes’ votes from Republicans and all ‘no’ votes from Democrats.^[59] The state House of Representatives overrode Edwards’ veto 72-32 with 68 Republicans, three independents, and one Democrat voting in favor and all votes against by Democrats.^[60] On March 9, 2022, Gov. Edwards had vetoed the congressional district map that the legislature had passed on February 18, 2022.

Reactions to 2022 congressional map[edit]

During the legislature's debate on the congressional map in February 2022, State Rep. Royce Duplessis (D) stated his concerns about the proposal, saying, "This map does not conform with the Voting Rights Act. This bill falls short for so many reasons from the lens of fairness."^[61] During the legislature's vote to override Gov. Edwards' veto of the boundaries, Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R) stated that she didn't think the state was required to have two majoroty-Black districts, saying, "Unfortunately, this is not something that you can do based on emotion, we have to follow the federal and the state laws. I hear again and again that a third of our population is Black — I hear that — but it does matter where people live."^[62]

After the legislature's override vote, House Speaker Clay Schexnayder (R) issued a statement that said, in part, "Today, the overwhelming will of the Legislature was heard. House Bill 1 fulfills our constitutionally mandated duty to redistrict Congress. It also shows true legislative independence and a clear separation of power from the executive branch."^[63]In remarks made after the legislature overrode his veto of the map, Gov. Edwards said, "I can't imagine there is a more compelling case for the courts to look at and to overturn than in Louisiana. It's not even close. I happen to believe it's a very clear case of violating the Voting Rights Act."^[63]

Edwards’ veto statement said, in part, "I have vetoed the proposed congressional map drawn by Louisiana’s Legislature because it does not include a second majority African American district, despite Black voters making up almost a third of Louisianans per the latest U.S. Census data. This map is simply not fair to the people of Louisiana and does not meet the standards set forth in the federal Voting Rights Act."^[64]

Tyler Bridges, Sam Karlin, and Blake Paterson wrote in The Advocate that, "Louisiana this fall will have five congressional districts favored to elect Republicans, while Democrats will have one – unless federal courts rule that the new map violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act and mandate new boundaries."^[65] They also reported that, "It was the first time a governor suffered a veto override against their wishes in 31 years."^[65] Greg Hilburn wrote in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser that "Veto overrides are rare in Louisiana, happening only three times including Wednesday's vote since the current state Constitution was enacted in 1973."^[63]

2020 presidential results using the 2022 congressional map[edit]

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.^[66] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.^[67]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Louisiana
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Louisiana's 1st	29.6%	68.5%	30.1%	68.0%
Louisiana's 2nd	75.4%	22.9%	75.3%	23.0%
Louisiana's 3rd	30.3%	68.0%	30.2%	68.1%
Louisiana's 4th	37.2%	61.3%	37.0%	61.5%
Louisiana's 5th	34.4%	64.1%	34.1%	64.5%
Louisiana's 6th	33.9%	64.3%	34.4%	63.8%

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana struck down the state's legislative maps and declared them to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act.^[10][11] According to the ruling, the court found the following:

The legislative maps that both chambers passed during a special legislative session in February 2022 became law 20 days after their passage as Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) neither signed not vetoed the redistricting plans. The legislative redistricting plan passed the state Senate, 25-11, with all votes in favor by Republicans and 10 Democrats and one Republican voting against. The state House of Representatives approved it by a 82-21 vote with 68 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and two independents voting in favor and 20 Democrats and one independent voting against.^[68][69] After the legislature voted on the maps, Tyler Bridges wrote in The Advocate, "Without much fuss, the Republican-controlled Legislature...approved new district boundaries for the state House and Senate that would maintain GOP legislative dominance for the next decade."^[70]

Edwards announced on March 9, 2022, that he would not act on the legislative boundaries, releasing a statement that said, in part, "While neither the congressional or legislative maps passed by Louisiana’s Legislature do anything to increase the number of districts where minority voters can elect candidates of their choosing, I do not believe the Legislature has the ability to draw new state House and Senate maps during this upcoming legislative session without the process halting the important work of the state of Louisiana. At a time when we face unprecedented challenges, but have unprecedented opportunities to make historic investments in our future, the Legislature should be focused on the issues in the upcoming session and not concerned about what their own districts will look like in the 2023 elections."^[71]

These maps took effect for Louisiana’s 2023 legislative elections.

Reactions to 2022 state legislative maps[edit]

After the Louisiana House of Representatives approved new district boundaries in 2022, House and Governmental Affairs Committee chair Rep. John Stefanski (R) said of the plan, "I think it is fair and legal and represents Louisiana.”^[72] Tyler Bridges of The Advocate reported that after the legislature approved the new state House and Senate boundaries, the "American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Louisiana, and the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund called on the governor to veto both maps, saying they don't comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act."^[73]

State Senate map[edit]

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

State House map[edit]

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Redistricting after the 2010 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Louisiana after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010[edit]

Following the 2010 United States Census, Louisiana lost one congressional seat. The new congressional district map was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal on April 14, 2011.^[44][74]

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission[edit]

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."^[75]

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.^[76]

State legislation and ballot measures[edit]

Redistricting legislation[edit]

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Louisiana state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures[edit]

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Louisiana ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked no ballot measures relating to redistricting in Louisiana.

Political impacts of redistricting[edit]

Competitiveness[edit]

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."^[77]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."^[78]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."^[79]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."^[80]

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

Louisiana was not included in this study.

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Louisiana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also[edit]

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Louisiana after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links[edit]

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Election policy Election legislation Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker • Election legislation tracking: weekly digest • Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics • Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Election dates and deadlines • Election Day voting • Ranked-choice voting • Redistricting • Voter registration Election administration Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Voting policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Electoral systems policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Primary elections policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Redistricting policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Recount laws Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for political candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Electoral systems Single-winner system • Multi-winner system • Block voting system • Plurality voting system • Majority voting system • Top-two primary • Blanket primary • Open primary • Closed primary • Semi-closed primary • Top-four primary • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • STAR voting • Approval voting • Fusion voting

	v • e State of Louisiana Baton Rouge (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy