Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hays v. Louisiana

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, three-judge panel · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRacial GerrymanderingCongressional RedistrictingVoting Rights ActEqual Protection Clauseracial gerrymanderingstrict scrutiny

Facts

Following the 1990 census, Louisiana's congressional delegation fell from eight seats to seven, and the Legislature enacted Act 1 with two majority-minority districts after concluding that the Department of Justice would not preclear a plan lacking a second such district. District 4 under Act 1 stretched about 250 miles through fifteen parishes, split numerous parishes and municipalities, and linked minority neighborhoods from Shreveport to Baton Rouge while disregarding compactness, common interests, and political subdivisions. The court found direct evidence that the cartographer focused almost exclusively on racial demographics and one-person-one-vote requirements, and that legislators passed Act 1 because it effectively separated black voters from white voters. Eight added plaintiffs resided and were registered to vote in District 4 as configured under Act 1.

Issue

Whether District 4 of Louisiana's Act 1 congressional redistricting plan was a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because race predominated over traditional race-neutral districting principles, and if so, whether the plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Rule

Under the Equal Protection Clause, a redistricting plan is subject to strict scrutiny if the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations so that race was the predominant, overriding factor in the district's design. If race predominates, the plan is valid only if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest; compliance with the Voting Rights Act cannot justify race-based districting where the challenged district was not reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading of that Act, and remedial action for past discrimination requires a strong evidentiary basis showing such action was necessary.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After the census, Franklin enacts a new congressional map. One district runs from Cleveland to Cincinnati through narrow connectors, splitting numerous counties and cities; the state’s mapmaker later testifies that, aside from equal-population requirements, he focused almost entirely on racial demographics because he believed federal officials would reject any map without a second minority-majority district.

Which is the strongest conclusion about the constitutionality of that district?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the first question is whether the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations so that race was the predominant, overriding factor in the district’s design. Direct evidence that the mapmaker focused virtually exclusively on racial demographics, together with extreme disregard of compactness and political subdivisions, triggers strict scrutiny. Equal-population compliance does not prevent strict scrutiny when race predominates. (Derived from Hays v. Louisiana (n.d.).)