Chief justice reveals rifts in Louisiana Supreme Court over redistricting – Louisiana Illuminator

The leader of the Louisiana Supreme Court strongly opposes a proposal from five of his colleagues to redraw the justices’ seven election districts. He says they created a new map without any public input, and he implies state lawmakers might have already agreed to approve it. 

Chief Justice John Weimer made his comments in a letter sent late Friday to the incoming governor, attorney general and legislative leaders. Gov.-elect Jeff Landry is expected to call the legislature into special session Jan. 15-23 to update Louisiana’s congressional districts. A federal court has set an end-of-January deadline for lawmakers to add a second majority-Black district to the state’s six U.S. House seats.

Weimer’s missive is the third Louisiana Supreme Court justices have sent to incoming state leaders this week.

The first came Wednesday from Associate Justices Willie Crain, James Genovese, Piper Griffin, Jefferson Hughes and Jay McCallum. They requested support for a proposed map that creates a second majority-Black district among the seven Supreme Court seats. Griffin, who represents the New Orleans-centered District 1, is the only Black and lone woman on the state’s highest court.

Census numbers for 2020 show Louisiana’s population of 4.67 million was close to one-third Black, which Democrats and voting rights advocates argue should be reflected through redistricting.

In his letter, Weimer said he also supports an additional minority district but not in the format his fellow justices have suggested. 

“I am already on the record for years now, openly and vigorously supporting providing an opportunity for additional minority representation on our state’s highest court,” the chief justice wrote. “The proposed redistricting plan creates polarization, rather than balance, which serves no one. We can and should do better.”

Associate Justice Scott Crichton sent his own letter Thursday in which he opposed his colleagues’ map. He supported their call for a second minority district but took issue with how the justices’ proposal “obliterates” District 2, which he represents. It goes from being a largely contiguous area across northern Louisiana to one that stretches along the Mississippi River from northeast Louisiana down to Baton Rouge, stretching out to include central parts of the states and part of the Florida Parishes.     

Weimer also criticized the justices’ cartography, describing districts as “rambling, disconnected” and “grossly and oddly shaped.” Their proposal disregards the requirement in state law for districts to preserve “communities of interest,” he said. 

The proposed boundaries of the 6th District, which Weimer represents, split his home Lafourche Parish between two Supreme Court seats. It’s one of a dozen parishes divided between different districts in the proposed map, an alignment that “unnecessarily creates administrative issues” for the court, the chief justice wrote.

Weimer said he was not shown the proposed districts the five justices submitted until Tuesday when he was asked to sign their letter. He also noted documents that accompanied the map were dated Dec. 5, which Weimer said indicated they were prepared early in the month but not shared with him until this week.

“I was not informed who drafted the map or who proposed these districts; however, I was told it reflects a map offered by the NAACP and is designed to protect three current justices who face reelection,” Weimer wrote.

“Also, I have been advised everyone who has received the letter from my colleagues and the majority of the legislature and the parties to the litigation have all decided that this redistricting plan is final and complete and non-negotiable,” the chief justice continued. “I am not privy to who is ‘calling the shots’ such that the legislature has possibly already capitulated to this proposed plan before a public hearing can be held.”

Rather than add the Louisiana Supreme Court’s redistricting to the nine-day special session in January, Weimer wants lawmakers to make it part of their regular session.

“…Redistricting should be conducted openly, above board, and transparently, and not behind closed doors or without public input or in haste during a special session devoted to the far different question of representation in the U.S. Congress,” he wrote “There is absolutely no need to rush through the process of redistricting in a special legislative session with a host of brand new legislators.”

Louisiana Supreme Court justices want their districts redrawn

Louisiana law doesn’t require state lawmakers to redraw boundaries for the Supreme Court districts, unlike the legally mandated decennial updates to boundaries for its U.S. House, legislative and state school board seats. Yet justices anticipate a pending 2019 lawsuit that challenges its districts to gain momentum with the added attention to the case over U.S. House seats.

The legislature met twice in 2022 to redraw Louisiana’s congressional districts, but the Republican majority has refused to create a second minority U.S. House seat. Black voters sued the state in federal over the status quo districts, not only in Congress but also the Louisiana House and Senate. The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case over legislative districts. 

During the last year’s first special session, state lawmakers were also presented with four different versions of new Louisiana Supreme Court districts. Three of them, all House bills, added a second majority-Black district and advanced from a redistricting committee, but none were brought up for a House floor vote.

Weimer addressed a separate topic in his letter that has created divisions within the state’s judiciary. He suggested its recipients stress to all state judges the need to participate in a National Center for State Courts study of their workload and needs. The findings are expected to factor into if and how the Louisiana Supreme Court adjusts the state’s 42 judicial districts, five appellate courts and the number of judges who serve them. 

“Approximately $150,000 of taxpayer funds was invested in this study before some judges on the courts of appeal and district courts reversed themselves and refused to participate,” Weimer wrote. “Having the right number of judges in the right place is essential to our system of justice. A systemic and complete analysis is necessary because of falling filings over the last 20 years and substantial shifts in population.”