Although the first special session of the Louisiana Legislature focused on redistricting, the issue of redrawing the state’s seven Supreme Court districts was not decided. In this special session, focused on criminal justice, the Supreme Court districts are back on the agenda.

Whatever is passed in this session could be the subject of additional legal battles. The congressional districts passed in the first special session are facing a legal challenge from plaintiffs in Monroe.

Like the congressional district issue, the reason for trying to redraw the Supreme Court districts is to create another Black majority district. The current legislation, HB 22, sponsored by State Representative Michael Johnson (R-Pineville), passed the House of Representatives by a 97-6 margin. Tomorrow, it will be on the agenda for the Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs.

Like the bill creating new congressional districts, this bill is controversial. To create a second majority Black district, the bill divides twelve parishes. The new second district moves from the western part of the state to an entirely new area. It now starts in the Northeast corner of the state, East Carroll Parish, and ends at Iberville Parish. The current Associate Justice, Scott Critchton, who represents the second district criticized the new map, noting that it “obliterates” his district.

In addition, the bill splits the northwest portion of the state, including Caddo Parish, in districts three and four. Between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, two other districts, the sixth and seventh, are a jumbled mess.

One vociferous critic of the legislation, State Senator Thomas Pressly (R-Shreveport), sarcastically tweeted, “These lines TOTALLY make sense. Compactness, nah. Parishes remaining whole, overrated. Preservation of communities of interest, hard pass. Preservation of cores of prior districts, no way. Appearance of reasonableness, def. not…hard pass.”

Pressly has been fighting a lonely battle against the new Supreme Court districts. He said he is “strongly, vehemently and adamantly opposed” to the “proposed map.” He noted the makeup of the districts were like the ones proposed by several Supreme Court justices in the first special session. According to Pressly, the problem is that these maps “minimize the influence of” northwest Louisiana and split “Shreveport into different districts.”

Before passing in the entire House of Representatives, the House and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved the bill. Pressly noted that there was not one member from northwest Louisiana on that committee.

Like Pressly, the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court, John Weimer, also opposes the new map. He was critical of the original plan submitted by several of his Supreme Court colleagues, which was almost identical to the map in HB 22.

In a letter to Governor Jeff Landry, Weimer complained that “The proposed redistricting plan creates polarization, rather than balance, which serves no one. We can and should do better.”

Weimer believes the new map creates districts which are “rambling, disconnected” and “grossly and oddly shaped.” He also noted that the new map “unnecessarily creates administrative issues” and violates state law, which mandates that districts maintain “communities of interest.”

The Chief Justice believes there have not been adequate public hearings on the new map and that there is “absolutely no need to rush through the process of redistricting in a special legislative session with a host of brand-new legislators.”

The legislative action is occurring due to a 2019 lawsuit by civil rights groups challenging the current map of Supreme Court districts. The case has been progressing through the courts, but, unlike the congressional districts, the legislators are not legally required to redraw the Supreme Court districts.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is encouraging lawmakers to approve the new map to save the state $10 million in legal fees fighting the lawsuit. She said the lawsuit was settled and will go into effect if legislators approve the map. She called it a “win-win for everybody.”  But the truth is, the proposed map is far worse than present law.  Any reappointment of the Supreme Court should be constitutional and not engage in racial gerrymandering. This unconstitutional map will itself be challenged and cost the state a fortune defending an unconstitutional plan.

One good proposal is to elect all seven Supreme Court justices statewide, but that will become a political impossibility if this gerrymandered plan becomes law.

While the aims of adding another Black majority district and addressing the racial imbalance on the Supreme Court are understandable, this proposed solution has plenty of drawbacks as previously outlined. Also, as noted by journalist Greg Larose in the Louisiana Illuminator, the voting population is not equally divided in the seven districts. They range from “632,579 (1st District) to 696,440 (4th District).”

Unfortunately, the author of the legislation was forced to conduct severe gerrymandering to create another Black majority district. In a quest to solve one problem, a host of other problems were created that, overall, do not serve the interests of the people of Louisiana.

The legislation, HB 22, would have to be approved by two-thirds of the State Senate.  Ironically, the proposed district maps cannot be amended, as they are locked in by the call for the special session.  Passage by a two-thirds’ vote is a tall order for a very bad piece of legislation. It should not be approved.

Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award-winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs Saturdays from Noon until 1 p.m. CT nationally on Real America’s Voice TV Network & AmericasVoice.News and weekdays from 7-11 a.m. CT on WGSO 990-AM & Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on Crouere.net. For more information, email him at jcrouere@gmail.com.