On Wednesday evening, the group of “non-African American” voters who prevailed earlier in the day in their challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map asked the Supreme Court to bypass its normal 32-day waiting period and send a copy of its opinion and order to the lower court immediately, making the decision final. The voters told the justices that the Louisiana Legislature “is considering pushing back” the deadlines for the state’s congressional primaries to allow them “to occur under a remedial map.” If it does shift the deadlines, they argued, “[t]hose 32 days could matter,” because of the short timeframe in which the state would need to revise the map.
Louisiana on Thursday afternoon confirmed that it would indeed postpone the state’s primary elections for Congress, which had been scheduled for May 16. In a letter to Scott Harris, the Supreme Court’s clerk, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga attached an executive order signed on Thursday by the state’s governor, Jeff Landry, that “encouraged” the Louisiana Legislature to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of Louisiana v. Callais and schedule primary elections “as soon as practical … in order to conduct the November 3, 2026 election.” Landry asserted that he had the power to do so when the Louisiana secretary of state certifies that there is an emergency. Here, he said, he agreed that there is an emergency, “as electing members to Congress under an unconstitutional map flies in the face of the United States Constitution and subjects Louisiana voters to representatives that are impermissibly elected as determined by the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision.”
Louisiana did not, however, specifically endorse the request to fast-track the process of finalizing the Supreme Court’s decision. Instead, it noted that Landry and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill are “working with the Legislature—which is in session until June 1—to immediately produce a constitutional map and electoral process for Louisiana. They do not view their ability to do so,” the state wrote, “as contingent upon when this Court transmits its opinion and judgment.”
If the Legislature does draw a new map, it is expected to favor Republicans, who currently hold four of the state’s six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives but could pick up one or even two more under a revised map.
The Black voters who defended the map urged the court to turn down the request to skip the 32-day waiting period. They told the justices that the Supreme Court should give them the chance “to seek[] rehearing in the ordinary course” – which would mean filing a petition for rehearing within 25 days of the court’s decision.
The Black voters also contended that the court should not only deny the “non-African American” voters’ request, but it should in fact put the issuance of its judgment on hold “until after the 2026 election.” They argued that it is too close to the election to reinstate the three-judge district court’s order finding that the 2024 map violated the Constitution and barring the state from using that map in the 2026 elections. Indeed, they noted, mail-in ballots have already gone out to overseas voters and some others in the state – some of whom have apparently already returned those ballots.
After Louisiana and the Black voters filed their responses, the federal district court in Louisiana indicated that, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday, the order prohibiting the state from using the 2024 map now “remains in effect.” Louisiana, the district court wrote, “will be afforded the opportunity to enact a Constitutionally compliant map” consistent with the decision in Callais. The district court instructed the state to submit a brief “outlining how the State intends to comply” with the Callais ruling and the lower court’s order barring the use of the 2024 map “within three (3) days” after the district court receives a copy of the decision and judgment from the Supreme Court.
