SCOTUS Kills the Cleo Map — Congress Races May Move to November

UPDATE: Minutes after publication, Secretary of State Nancy Landry publicly confirmed that Louisiana’s U.S. House races are being suspended, while all other May 16 elections will proceed as scheduled. Early voting begins Saturday for all remaining contests. Because ballots are already printed, congressional contests may still appear on some ballots. However, the Secretary of State says any votes cast in those races will not be counted.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, state officials are expected to move quickly to replace the now-unconstitutional congressional map and adjust the election calendar accordingly. Sources indicate Louisiana had already prepared for this possibility and has contingency legislation ready to move during the current session — meaning no special session is required.

Once the Court declared the current map unconstitutional, doing nothing was no longer a realistic option. The most likely scenario under discussion would remove closed primary congressional races from the May 16 ballot and move them to a one-time jungle primary on November 3. UPDATE: Governor Jeff Landry has now formally suspended Louisiana’s U.S. House races scheduled for May 16 and June 27 through Executive Order JML 26-038, while directing the Legislature to enact new maps and election procedures as quickly as practicable. If lawmakers proceed on that track, congressional candidates would likely need to re-qualify during the existing July 29–31 qualifying period listed on the state’s 2026 election calendar.

State officials emphasized one critical point: only the congressional races would move. All other elections currently scheduled for May 16 would remain on the ballot as planned. In other words, voters should still expect to show up on May 16 and cast ballots in every other race, including the five proposed constitutional amendments.

Immediate Political Fallout

Plainly, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court and held that Louisiana’s current congressional map (SB8) is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, though understandable, was unconstitutional. That means yesterday’s court ruling was not the end of the story but the opening move in Louisiana’s next political scramble and the continuation of a rapid, nationwide political reshuffle already underway in several states.

What that change means for Louisiana, especially considering congressional races are likely being removed from the May ballot:

• Current candidates may need to qualify again, potentially opening the field to new candidates.
• Campaign timelines and fundraising plans would be reset.
• Importantly, the May 16th ballot remains in effect; only the Congressional race portion would move to November.
• Candidates eliminated in the May U.S. Senate party primary could theoretically pivot and qualify for Congress afterward.

The Legislature Appears Ready

Lawmakers have already filed multiple placeholder redistricting instruments this session, preparing for the possibility that the current map would be thrown out. Those instruments include:

• HB642 by House Speaker Pro Tempore, “NewLouisiana” Mike Johnson (R). (District 2 is 60% minority)
• SB116 by Senator Jay Morris (R) (zero minority districts)
• SB121 by Senator Jay Morris (R) (district 2 is 60% minority)
• SB130 by Senator Jay Morris (R) (district 6 is 60% minority)
• SB117 by Senator Caleb Kelinpeter (R) (The same “Cleo District” map)
• SB407 by Senator Edward Price (D) (districts 2 and 5 are over 50% minority)

Keep in mind that these instruments will likely be amended and adjusted in response to political pressure.

A cursory review didn’t reveal any obvious instruments to move the congressional race to a jungle primary (from May 16th to November 3rd). However, unless it triggers the dual-object rule, Alan Seabaugh‘s SB49, which has already passed the Senate, could be amended in the House to include the congressional races. That instrument moves BESE (The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) from closed primaries and back to the old jungle system.

On The Court’s Ruling

There was always a question lurking beneath Louisiana’s redistricting fight — a question the courts had avoided for decades: Can the government use race to comply with the Voting Rights Act… even if the Constitution forbids it? This week, the Supreme Court finally answered, and that answer changes the entire game.

For years, courts operated under a convenient assumption that complying with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) meant using race as a basis for districting, specifically to create majority-minority districts, was not just allowed but required. Louisiana’s “Cleo District” was built as a custom-made challenge to that assumption. In order to answer whether this is the actual meaning of the VRA, Louisiana created an egregiously race-based district.

The Court has now said plainly that the assumption only works if the Voting Rights Act actually requires it. And in Louisiana’s case, it did not.

What the Court Actually Held

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court affirmed that the state’s current congressional map is unconstitutional. The reasoning is straightforward:

• The map with the second majority-Black district is struck down.
• The Court says Louisiana relied on a mistaken interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• The Court narrows the scope of how Section 2 should be understood going forward.
• Immediate political and election consequences now follow.

Justice Alito opens with: “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act … was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it.” The Court put it plainly: “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race.”

The Real Shift: Redefining the Voting Rights Act

As Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill promised, this ruling goes far beyond Louisiana. The Court did not eliminate the Voting Rights Act — but it fundamentally reinterpreted what it means. It rejected the idea that Section 2 guarantees a certain number of minority districts or proportional political outcomes. Instead, it held that minority voters are entitled to equal opportunity — not engineered outcomes.

And more importantly, the ruling appears to narrow Section 2 theories that rely primarily on statistical outcomes rather than evidence of present discrimination. In practical terms, the Court made clear that Section 2 is about preventing intentional discrimination — not mandating demographic results.

Why the Cleo District Failed

Under this new framework, the Cleo District was doomed. During the House floor debate, Beryl Amedee asked the pivotal question: was the bill intended to create another majority-Black district? The answer was yes — plainly and on the record.

That mattered. The Supreme Court found that Louisiana configured District 6 to achieve a Black voting-age population above 50%, and that this express racial purpose triggered strict scrutiny. The Court also concluded that the underlying claim—that a second majority-Black district was legally required—had not been sufficiently established.

Even worse for the defenders, their evidence failed to separate race from politics. They relied on historical patterns instead of current intentional discrimination. Read that again. Their case leaned heavily on stale historical narratives being repurposed as present-day legal proof. The Court made that explicit failure clear. That is no longer enough.

The Reality No One Wants to Say Out Loud

For decades, redistricting law tried to do two things at once: Avoid racial discrimination while also requiring race-conscious solutions. This ruling acknowledges what everyone knew: lawmakers can’t have it both ways.

In a concurring but separate opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch highlighted that the decision ended a “disastrous misadventure.” They went further to explain that the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. That is within the purview of the State and within the traditional role of the State’s sovereignty over election matters. This is a key point that the partisan election-integrity crowd repeatedly misses in their dangerous calls for federal intervention in state elections.

The concurring opinion continues:

The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a “voting qualification,” “prerequisite to voting,” or “standard, practice, or procedure,” in a manner that results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race. 52 U. S. C. §10301(a). How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories. The words in §2 instead “reach only ‘enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot’; they do not include a State’s . . . choice of one districting scheme over another.’” Therefore, no §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed

Where Louisiana Goes Next

Louisiana is back where it started — needing a new map, a new calendar, and perhaps a new round of campaigns. What began as a redistricting lawsuit has now become more than just an election-year political reset.

The Cleo District is, for all practical purposes, finished. This case was never just about one district. It was about whether federal law could continue to justify — and sometimes even demand — race-based decision-making in elections. Now we have the answer, and the structure of redistricting law nationwide has shifted beneath it.

###