NEW ORLEANS (CN) — In a tense en banc appellate hearing Thursday, Louisiana’s attorney general argued — and several of the Fifth Circuit's conservative judges appeared to agree — that a consent decree enacted in 1992 to prevent voter dilution in a single area encompassing New Orleans should no longer be enforced.
The consent decree, which stems from a 1986 voting rights lawsuit challenging the method of electing justices to the Louisiana Supreme Court, required the state to reapportion its Supreme Court districts to include one district that encompasses Orleans
Parish and is majority Black in voting-age population, thus creating a way for Black voters in the parish to have an equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice
In 2000, the existing consent decree in the case appeared to be satisfied but no further action to end the decree took place. Then, over the next 20 years, the decree was called into question twice as Black judges fought for and obtained placement at the state Supreme Court.
It was in 2021 that then-attorney general and current Governor Jeff Landry asked U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan to dissolve the decree.
The Obama-appointed Eastern District of Louisiana judge declined to do so, explaining in her May 2022 ruling that the state had not assuaged her concern that without the decree it might form a reapportionment plan that "splits Orleans Parish up into other districts so that there’s no possibility for an African American to be elected.”
A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel affirmed Morgan's decision before the circuit court vacated that ruling and granted the en banc hearing held Thursday.
Upending the case, however, was Louisiana's Act 7, which came into being on May 1 to regulate redistricting. It will take effect in the coming weeks, redrawing the state’s Supreme Court districts for the first time since 1997.
In light of the act, the parties on Tuesday asked the lower court to indicate whether it would agree to dissolve the 30-year-old consent decree if the Fifth Circuit were to send the case back for that purpose.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, however, took no position — a move that appeared to flummox U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes during Thursday's hearing.
“All I understand,” Haynes said, “is that what they asked the court to do is what you asked them to do ... but you wouldn’t sign."
The George W. Bush-appointed judge continued, "Why can’t y’all get together and have a zoom call or something and get together and get this done?”
Murrill didn't reveal why she didn't sign the papers, but she said her office was unwilling to promise that it wouldn't take any particular action. “We cannot know the future,” she said numerous times during Thursday’s hearing.
Attorney Leah Aden, who represents the plaintiffs, said the “narrow question” before the appellate panel was whether the lower court had abused its discretion in refusing to drop the consent decree.
“It did not,” Aden said. “The district court which is afforded heightened discretion was not unwarranted in finding that the attorney general did not meet her obligations.”
Aden said that Act 7 will show that the Louisiana Legislature retains its power and ability to redistrict.
The panel did not immediately indicate how or when it would decide on the matter.
Follow @SabrinaCanfiel2
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Contributor-Test-Post-2024-06-29 June 29, 2024 -
-
-
Supreme Court won’t delay Bannon prison sentence June 28, 2024