Five of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s seven elected justices went public this week with their support of a proposal to redraw their districts. One of those who isn’t on board is now explaining why. 

Associate Justices Willie Crain, James Genovese, Piper Griffin, Jefferson Hughes and Jay McCallum sent a letter Wednesday to the next governor, attorney general and legislative leaders endorsing their proposed map that creates a second majority-Black state Supreme Court district. The signatures of Chief Justice John Weimer and Associate Justice Scott Crichton were not on the letter.

In a separate letter sent Thursday to incoming state leaders, Crichton said he doesn’t oppose a second majority-minority district but objects to how it “obliterates” District 2, which he represents. The district’s current boundaries span northern Louisiana from its western to eastern borders. The proposed revisions would move District 2 toward the northeastern corner of the state and then have it reach southward along the Mississippi River.

Crichton will turn 70 years old, the mandated retirement age for Louisiana judges, in June and cannot run for reelection after his term ends Dec. 31, 2024. He said in his letter, a copy of which the Illuminator obtained Friday, that some 500,000 voters in his district will be disenfranchised for two years. Under boundaries the five justices propose, they will be moved into two new districts and have no representation on the court from Jan. 1, 2025, until elections are held in the two other districts for justices whose terms expire Dec. 31, 2026.

Rather than use the map the five justices endorsed, Crichton wants the Louisiana Legislature to rework the boundaries to add a second majority-minority district. Griffin, who represents New Orleans-concentrated District 4, is the state Supreme Court’s only non-white justice.

“Importantly, I agree with my colleagues that malapportionment issues related to the Supreme Court must be resolved to create a second majority-minority district, for the reasons noted in their letter,” Crichton wrote. “I also prefer that our duly-elected representatives in the legislature adopt a plan to achieve that objective, rather than the federal courts doing so for us.”

Weimer could not be reached Friday afternoon to ask why he did not sign the letter the five justices sent Wednesday.

Louisiana Supreme Court justices want their districts redrawn

State lawmakers already plan to convene for a special redistricting session Jan. 15-23 after a federal judge set a Jan. 31 deadline for them to create a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. The Republican-majority legislature has twice previously refused to add the second Black district, leading to a lawsuit over federal Voting Rights Act violations.  

During the 2022 redistricting session, state lawmakers were 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.

Census numbers show Louisiana’s population of 4.67 million nearing one-third Black, which Democrats and voting rights advocates argue should be reflected through redistricting. Instead, the legislature maintained the status quo last year. In addition to staying with the current U.S. House makeup, lawmakers kept six of the eight elected positions on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education as majority Black. They also left the racial composition of their own legislative districts unchanged.

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. But justices anticipate federal courts stepping if no changes are made.

In addition to the lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s congressional districts, Black voters have also sued to force changes to the racial makeup of state House and Senate seats. The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened for the plaintiffs in the latter case.