The US Supreme Court took an unusual procedural step on Monday to expedite a recent ruling that weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, allowing Louisiana Republicans to redraw congressional maps before the 2026 midterm elections. The move comes less than a week after the court struck down Louisiana's congressional map and gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Expedited Judgment
Typically, the Supreme Court waits 32 days before formally issuing its judgment to lower courts. However, Louisiana requested an expedited process, citing the urgency of redrawing districts ahead of the general election. The court granted this request on Monday.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, noted: "The date scheduled for the beginning of early voting in the primary election has already passed. The congressional districting map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months."
Political Implications
The decision provides legal cover for Louisiana Republicans, who had cancelled the 16 May primary after mail-in ballots were already sent to overseas voters. Ongoing litigation challenges that cancellation, and the Supreme Court's expedited ruling strengthens Louisiana's argument for holding new elections.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly dissented, criticizing the court for departing from standard procedure. She noted that only twice in the last 25 years had the court expedited a ruling. "To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures. But, today, the Court chooses the opposite," she wrote.
Jackson added: "The Court's decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana's rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map." She accused the majority of unshackling itself from constraints and diving into the fray, saying "those principles give way to power."
Conservative Response
Justice Alito, joined by fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dismissed Jackson's accusations as "baseless and insulting." He wrote: "The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge." Alito questioned what principle the court had violated, noting that Rule 45.3's default period can be shortened for good reason.
The ruling underscores deep divisions on the court over voting rights and judicial procedure, with potential implications for the 2026 midterm elections.
