La. State Conference of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Louisiana, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-479-JWD-SDJ

Citation490 F.Supp.3d 982
Decision Date26 June 2020
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 19-479-JWD-SDJ
Parties LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al. v. State of LOUISIANA, et al.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana

Arthur Ray Thomas, Arthur Thomas & Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, Adam L. Shaw, Pro Hac Vice, Alec W. Farr, Pro Hac Vice, Jason Semmes, Pro Hac Vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Washington, DC, Meryl Macklin, Pro Hac Vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Anthony Allen, Stephanie Anthony.

Arthur Ray Thomas, Arthur Thomas & Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, Adam L. Shaw, Pro Hac Vice, Alec W. Farr, Pro Hac Vice, Jason Semmes, Pro Hac Vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Brendan Downes, Pro Hac Vice, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Pro Hac Vice, Jennifer Nwachukwu, Pro Hac Vice, Jon M. Greenbaum, Pro Hac Vice, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, Meryl Macklin, Pro Hac Vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Louisiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Louisiana's Office of the Attorney General, Angelique Duhon Freel, Jeffrey Michael Wale, Louisiana Department of Justice, Carey T. Jones, Baton Rouge, LA, Jason B. Torchinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Phillip Michael Gordon, Pro Hac Vice, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky, PLLC, Haymarket, VA, for State of Louisiana.

Celia R. Cangelosi, Celia R. Cangelosi, Attorney at Law, Baton Rouge, LA, Jason B. Torchinsky, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky, PLLC, Haymarket, VA, for R. Kyle Ardoin.

RULING AND ORDER

JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on two motions to dismiss filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The first is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 27) filed by the State of Louisiana (the "State"). The second is the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, R. Kyle Ardoin, Louisiana Secretary of State ("Ardoin") (Ardoin and the State are collectively, "Defendants") (Doc. 28). Plaintiffs, the Louisiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("Louisiana NAACP"), Anthony Allen, and Stephanie Anthony (collectively, "Plaintiffs") oppose the motions (Docs. 34–35), and Defendants have filed replies (Docs. 36–37). Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motions are denied.

I. Relevant Factual Background
A. The Voting Rights Act

This suit is brought under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq. Section 2 of this act provides, in relevant part:

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(a), (b).

B. Allegations of the Complaint
1. Introduction

Plaintiffs in this action are the Louisiana NAACP, Anthony Allen, and Stephanie Anthony. (Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint ") ¶¶ 10–13, Doc. 1.) The Louisiana NAACP is a "state subsidiary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc." (Id. ¶ 10.) The Louisiana NAACP is the "oldest and one of the most significant civil rights organizations in Louisiana, and it works to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of African Americans and all other Americans." (Id. ) The "[t]wo central goals of the Louisiana NAACP are to eliminate racial discrimination in the democratic process, and to enforce federal laws and constitutional provisions securing voting rights." (Id. ) The Complaint states, "[t]oward those ends, the Louisiana NAACP has participated in lawsuits to protect the right to vote, regularly engages in efforts to register and educate African-American voters, and encourages African Americans to engage in the political process by turning out to vote on Election Day." (Id. ) Critically, the Complaint provides, "The mission of the Louisiana NAACP is frustrated by the current Supreme Court districts, which inhibit the organization's ability to fulfill its objectives, including the promotion of political equality for black voters." (Id. ) Further, the Plaintiffs assert that the "Louisiana NAACP has members throughout the State, including members whose votes are unlawfully diluted by the current Supreme Court districts and whose injury would be redressed by the creation of a second majority-black district in the State." (Id. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiffs Anthony Allen and Stephanie Anthony are both adult African-American citizens who reside in East Baton Rouge Parish. (Compl. ¶¶ 12–13, Doc. 1.) Both are registered to vote there as well. (Id. ) Plaintiffs claim that, "[a]s a result of the demonographies of [their] Supreme Court district and racially polarized voting, [Allen and Anthony's] vote[s] [are] unlawfully diluted." (Id. ) Plaintiffs maintain that, "[a] majority-black district including [Allen's and Anthony's] home[s] could be drawn to provide a remedy for the Section 2 violation." (Id. )

Defendants in this action are the State of Louisiana and R. Kyle Ardoin, the Louisiana Secretary of State. (Id. ¶¶ 14–15.) Ardoin is sued in his official capacity and is alleged to be the "State's chief election officer." (Id. ¶ 15 (citing La. R.S. § 18:421 ).)

In their Complaint , Plaintiffs allege that the voting age population of Louisiana is approximately 30% African American, but this group only makes up a majority of one of the seven Louisiana Supreme Court electoral districts (or about 14% of the districts). (Compl. ¶ 2, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs claim that "the demographics of [these] districts and racially polarized voting" prevent African Americans "from equal participation in the election of justices to the Court." (Id. ) Indeed, Louisiana has had in its history only two African Americans on the Supreme Court, both of which have come from the "sole majority-black district in the State—a district created as a result of voting rights litigation." (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs assert:

[ ] Louisiana's African-American population and its voting-age population are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in two fairly drawn, constitutional single-member districts for the Supreme Court; the State's African Americans are politically cohesive; and the State's white voting-age majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat African-American voters’ preferred candidates in six of Louisiana's seven Supreme Court districts. Because of these circumstances, as well as the historical, socioeconomic, and electoral conditions of Louisiana, the Supreme Court districts as currently drawn violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 ("Section 2"). Thornburg v. Gingles , 478 U.S. 30 [106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25] (1986).
[ ] For these reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court (a) declare that the current single-member districts for the Louisiana Supreme Court violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, (b) enjoin the further use of the current Supreme Court districts, and (c) require the State to redraw the Louisiana Supreme Court districts so that future elections can be conducted in compliance with the Constitution of the United States and the Voting Rights Act.

(Id. ¶¶ 4–5.)

2. The Consent Judgment: Allegations

In their Complaint , Plaintiffs also discuss Chisom v. Roemer , 501 U.S. 380, 111 S. Ct. 2354, 115 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1991), where minority plaintiffs challenged the original electoral process for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which had consisted of six judicial districts, five of which were single-member districts and one of which was multi-member, encompassed Orleans Parish, and elected two justices. (Compl. ¶¶ 23–24, Doc. 1.) Chisom v. Roemer held that "elections for appellate judges could not unlawfully dilute minority votes under the Voting Rights Act." (Id. ¶ 24.)

Following Chisom , the Louisiana legislature enacted Act 512 in 1992, "which created a temporary eighth Supreme Court seat for the sub-district of Orleans." (Id. ¶ 25) (citing 1992 La. Acts No. 512, § 1.) The Complaint then provides:

An August 21, 1992 federal consent decree memorializing Act 512 stipulated that (a) the State would split the multi-member district into two single-member districts upon expiration of the temporary seat, and (b) one of those districts would consist of most of Orleans Parish and a portion of neighboring Jefferson Parish, making it majority African-American.

(Id. ) The specific language of the Consent Judgment in Chisom will be discussed in greater detail below.

After the election of two African-Americans in the "Chisom seat", "in 1999 – the most recent reapportionment of Supreme Court districts – the Louisiana legislature drew seven single-member districts, consistent with the Chisom consent decree." (Id. ¶ 28.)

3. Plaintiff's Section 2 Allegations

Next follows a discussion of "Section 2 Vote Dilution" and the " Thornburg v. Gingles Analysis." The three " Gingles preconditions" for a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are:

a. The minority
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT