Reports: Louisiana gov. to delay primary after Supreme Court ruling

April 30 (UPI) -- Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry plans to delay primary elections after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week striking down the state's newly drawn congressional map, unnamed sources told multiple media outlets Thursday.

The primary was originally scheduled for May 16 ahead of November midterm elections.

Sources familiar with the situation confirmed the delay to NBC News, The Washington Post and Politico.

The Republican governor, along with Attorney General Liz Murrill, issued a joint statement on X Thursday morning hinting at the delay. They called the Supreme Court's ruling a "victory for Louisiana."

Related

• Florida legislature OKs congressional map, sends to DeSantis
• Supreme Court clears Texas to use new, GOP-favored congressional map
• Virginia Supreme Court hears GOP challenge to new congressional map
• Judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit demanding Arizona voter rolls

"The Supreme Court previously stayed an injunction against the State's enforcement of the current Congressional map," the statement reads.

"By the Court's order, however, that stay automatically terminated with yesterday's decision. Accordingly, the State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map. We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State's office to develop a path forward."

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that Louisiana's congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 6-3 decision is expected to eliminate one of the two predominantly Black congressional districts established by redistricting after the 2020 census.

Democrats and civil rights activists said the ruling gutted a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. They said the redrawn map complied with Section 2 of the act, which bars election practices that dilute minority voters' power, including by packing them into too few districts or spreading them across too many.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said: "When §2 of the Act is properly interpreted, it imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred."

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three dissenters who make up the bench's liberal justices, said such intentional discrimination is hard to prove and that Wednesday's decision serves to "eviscerate the law."

"Under the Court's new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power," she wrote in her strongly worded dissent.

She described the majority opinion as green-lighting redistricting plans that "will disable minority communities" from electing representatives of their choice.