This week saw a flurry of major developments impacting democracy. Louisiana now features two majority-Black districts for the first time in decades after an arduous legal and legislative battle was finally settled. Good redistricting news should soon come to Wisconsin too, but it will be no thanks to high jinks pulled by state Republicans. 

Meanwhile, voters in North Carolina notched a significant victory in their fight against a restrictive voter registration provision, and the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case that could re-enfranchise nearly 11% of the state’s voting-age population.

Better Late Than Never, a Victory for Black Voters in Louisiana

Last week we explained how Black voters in Louisiana could see the light at the end of the tunnel in their nearly two-year fight for adequate congressional representation. On Monday evening, that fight finally came to an end. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) enacted a bill into law creating a new congressional map for the state featuring two majority-Black districts.

The redrawn map increases the Black makeup of the state’s 6th Congressional District —  now stretching from Caddo Parish to East Baton Rouge Parish that is currently held by U.S. Rep Garret Graves (R) — from 23% to 54%, almost certainly taking out the Republican and netting Democrats an additional seat in Congress. The new district spans more than 200 miles in length.

The Louisiana Legislature was thrown into the map drawing process in June 2022 when a federal court struck down the state’s congressional map drawn with 2020 census data for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting Black voting power, and ordered the creation of a second majority-Black district. Republicans have sought to continue attacks on Section 2, despite the U.S. Supreme Court upholding it last summer.

After passing the Louisiana Senate last week, the map cleared the full House on Friday in a landslide 86-16 vote. A House committee had made significant changes to the map, however the full House later voted to strike down the amendment and pass the original proposal. Once the Senate concurred with the changes, Landry’s signature was the final step in the arduous process.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee described the newly enacted map as “a much-needed victory for democracy” that leaves the committee “confident that come November, we will welcome a new Democrat from Louisiana.” U.S. Rep. Troy Carter (D), the state’s only Black member of Congress, praised the map for paving “the way for generations of change-makers in our great state for years to come.”

Among the few voices who spoke against the map was Graves, unsurprisingly, along with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), who slammed the map for the “surrender of a Republican seat in Congress.” 

Louisiana’s redraw process was part of a special session called by Landry in which the governor also asked the Legislature to consider changes to the state’s primary system as well as the state’s Supreme Court map. Legislators ultimately failed to make changes to the Supreme Court map, though the Legislature did eliminate open primaries for certain elections.

Wisconsin Republicans Pull “Stunt,” Jam Through Amended Maps

In just a two-day span, Wisconsin Republicans introduced and pushed through both legislative chambers a hastily amended bill that would create new legislative maps in the state to protect Republican incumbents. 

The maps, which were kept secret from the public and legislative Democrats before their introduction in the Senate, significantly amended proposals by Gov. Tony Evers (D) — so much so that the governor’s spokesperson described the quick move as being “about one thing: Republicans desperately trying to retain power.” 

Evers’ original map would cut Republicans’ Assembly majority down from 29 to seven seats, while the GOP would have a one-seat advantage in the Senate. Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, who introduced the 169-page amendment, claimed the abrupt changes wouldn’t change the current partisan breakdown. 

After the Senate passed the bill on Tuesday in a 17-14 vote that included four Republicans bucking their own party to vote with Democrats, the Wisconsin Assembly took up and pushed through the proposal in a party-line vote. The move was an abrupt about face from just the day before, when Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said he had “no problems” with adopting Evers’ map without any changes.

This map redraw comes just a month after the newly liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state’s legislative maps for violating the Wisconsin Constitution’s new contiguity requirements. The court ordered the Legislature to adopt remedial maps, but stated that if the Legislature fails to do so, the court is “prepared” to step in and adopt remedial plans. Evers has vowed to veto the maps. When he does, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will then be charged with adopting the state’s new maps.

5th Circuit Hears Challenge to Mississippi Felony Disenfranchisement Law 

On Tuesday, all 19 judges on the 5th Circuit reheard a case challenging the Mississippi Constitution’s lifetime ban on voting for individuals with certain felony convictions even after sentence completion. 

The rehearing came after a groundbreaking decision from a 5th Circuit panel that struck down the state’s felony disenfranchisement provision for violating the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

The provision at issue, Section 241, has been left in place since the entire 5th Circuit granted the state’s request for rehearing and voided the panel’s decision. The provision strips the right to vote for life from anyone convicted of bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, rape, murder or bigamy. Section 241 was enshrined in Mississippi’s 1890 constitution with the express purpose of denying Black men the right to vote. Mississippi disenfranchises nearly 11% of its voting age population — more than any state in the country.

During oral argument, the Republican secretary of state’s attorney claimed the scheme does not constitute a form of punishment under the 8th Amendment, arguing that “it is about qualifications and regulations of the electoral franchise…[it] is not a punishment at all.” 

The attorney also asserted that “what our traditions recognize in disenfranchising felons for so long is that there are certain features of character and judgment that felons…are potentially incapable of” possessing, a pejorative characterization of the impacted individuals that one judge pushed back on, highlighting that not all felons are disenfranchised.

Attorneys for those challenging the provision pushed back on claims by the state that Section 241 was not a form of punishment, pointing to Mississippi’s 1870 Readmission Act — which allowed the former Confederate state to gain representation in Congress following the Civil War — as proof of the fact that Section 241 was intended as a form of punishment. The act states that the Mississippi Constitution “shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen…the right to vote…except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney concluded their argument by stating that the Mississippi law is unconstitutional because it “permanently disenfranchises individuals after terms of sentence are completed.” With oral argument concluded, the entire 5th Circuit could release its opinion at any time. 

Federal Judge Deals Blow to North Carolina’s Voter Suppression Law

Good news kicked off the start of the week in North Carolina, with a federal judge blocking a provision of the state’s recently enacted voter suppression law. The provision, known as the “undeliverable mail provision,” permitted the rejection of same-day registrants’ voter registration applications and completed ballots merely based on a single address verification notice sent via the U.S. Postal Service being returned as undeliverable. 

Same-day voters are those who register to vote the same day that they cast their ballots during North Carolina’’s early voting period. 

The provision is rife with flaws. It does not provide same-day registrants with the ability to contest an automatic denial nor does it provide applicable voters with any notice of their registrations or completed ballots being denied. Additionally, the process is highly susceptible to errors, either from the Postal Service or poll workers — so susceptible that studies have shown as much as 23% of undeliverable mail is a result of an error, rather than a faulty address.

Given these issues, Voto Latino and the Democratic National Committee filed federal lawsuits challenging various portions of the statue under the First and 14th Amendments, as well as provisions of federal law. Beyond the previously mentioned flaws, Voto Latino’s complaint also points out that Black, Latino and young North Carolians are disproportionately to have mail returned as undeliverable due to housing insecurity, having a college address or living in multi-generational households.

In a Jan. 21 order, a judge appointed by former President George W. Bush held that the “Plaintiffs are likely to show that the undeliverable mail provision, as written, is unconstitutional.” The decision further ruled that the law “creates an unacceptable risk that eligible voters’ ballots will be erroneously removed and not counted.” The judge also provided empirical evidence of the plaintiffs claims: over the past four even-numbered election years, thousands of same-day registrants failed address verification, the order read.

As a result of the pro-voting decision, same-day voters who fail the address verification process must now be provided notice of the failure and be given an opportunity to appear at a hearing before the county board of elections prior to their ballot being removed. The judge's order blocking the provisions will remain in place until the changes are implemented.

FROM MARC: The Republican Inferno And The Nine Circles Of Trump

Inauguration day is less than a year away, and it is hard to believe that three years after then-President Donald Trump left office Republicans are still descending deeper into the bleak hopelessness of MAGA authoritarianism. By Marc Elias. Read more  ➡️

What We’re Doing

This week we launched a new resource page featuring everything you need to know about challenges to Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment as we gear up for oral argument in a couple weeks. The page features explainers, analysis pieces, articles from guest contributors and more, and we will be adding even more content as time goes on. Check it out here.

A new episode of our podcast Defending Democracy is here! In today’s episode, Marc and Paige kick off the new season by covering all of the latest Trumpdates, of which there are many. Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, or watch it on YouTube.