Robinson v. Ardoin
37 F.4th 208
5th Cir.2022Background
- After the 2020 census Louisiana retained six congressional seats; the Legislature enacted a map with only one Black-majority district. Plaintiffs (including individual voters and NAACP) sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, invoking Thornburg v. Gingles to seek a second Black-majority district for 2022.
- After a five-day evidentiary hearing the district court granted a preliminary injunction directing the Legislature to adopt a remedial map (creating a second Black-majority district, “CD 5”) by June 20 to be used in the 2022 primaries.
- Defendants (Secretary of State, legislative leaders, Attorney General, and intervenors) appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal. The Fifth Circuit emergency panel reviewed the stay motions on an expedited basis.
- The panel evaluated the four stay-factors (Nken): likelihood of success, irreparable injury, balance of equities/public interest, and Purcell nonintervention concerns about election disruption.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated an administrative stay and denied the stay pending appeal, concluding defendants had not made the required strong showing of likely success on the merits, and expedited the appeal to a merits panel in early July 2022 while noting the district court’s findings had some weaknesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper BVAP measure for Gingles first prong | Use “Any Part Black” (count anyone identifying at least partly as Black) to show sufficient Black VAP to form a district | “Any Part Black” inflates BVAP; should use narrower measures (DOJ Black or Single-Race Black) | Court upheld use of “Any Part Black” here (per precedent); defendants unlikely to prevail on this ground |
| Compactness of proposed CD5 (first Gingles prong) | Proposed CD5’s Black population is geographically and culturally compact and respects traditional criteria | CD5 stretches long distances, splits cities, and combines dissimilar communities; not reasonably compact | Visual inspection, expert testimony, and unrebutted community-of-interest evidence support district court’s finding that the Black population is likely compact; defendants haven’t made strong showing of error |
| Racial gerrymandering (Shaw/Miller) | Plaintiffs’ illustrative maps considered race but did not subordinate traditional criteria; illustrative maps are permissible for proving Gingles | Plaintiffs’ maps were drawn with race as predominant factor and therefore are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders | Race was a factor but district court found no predominance; even if plaintiffs’ illustrations used race, Legislature need not adopt those maps; defendants have not shown likely success on this claim |
| White bloc voting (third Gingles prong) | Experts show Black-preferred candidates usually lose outside existing majority district (CD2); observed crossover voting insufficient to change outcomes | Evidence of substantial white crossover voting in parts of state (e.g., East Baton Rouge) defeats the claim that whites usually defeat Black-preferred candidates | District court properly focused on likely electoral outcomes in the relevant district and found crossover levels insufficient; defendants failed to show clear error or likely success |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (three preconditions for Section 2 claim)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution against late changes to election rules to avoid voter confusion)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standard for stays pending appeal)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (race-as-predominant-factor test for racial gerrymandering)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (racial gerrymandering framework)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (compactness and traditional-districting principles in Gingles analysis)
- Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 142 S. Ct. 1245 (2022) (compactness and need for district-by-district inquiry)
- Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017) (analysis of crossover/performing districts and Section 2)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (limits on forming districts for minority groups that are not numerical majorities)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (Section 2 and Gingles context)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) (localized inquiry for Section 2 claims)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for inferring discriminatory intent)