United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED September 28, 2023 No. 23-30642 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

In re Jeff Landry, In his official capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General; Kyle R. Ardoin, in his official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State,

Petitioners. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 3:22-CV-211, 3:22-CV-214 ______________________________

Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges. By Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge: Louisiana’s Attorney General has filed this request for mandamus relief seeking to vacate the district court’s hearing scheduled to begin on October 3 and require the district court to promptly convene trial on the merits in this congressional redistricting case. We GRANT IN PART, ORDERING the District Court to VACATE the October Hearing. The reasons for this grant of relief are as follows: Redistricting based on section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, is complex, historically evolving, and sometimes undertaken with looming electoral deadlines. But it is not a game of ambush. Since 1966, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded lower federal courts that if legislative districts are found to be unconstitutional, the elected Case: 23-30642 Document: 00516912407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2023

No. 23-30642

body must usually be afforded an adequate opportunity to enact revised districts before the federal court steps in to assume that authority. In Reynolds v. Sims, the Court stated that “legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.”1 In subsequent cases, [t]he Court has repeatedly held that redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative task which the courts should make every effort not to preempt. When a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, it is therefore, appropriate, whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S. Ct. 2493, 2497 (1978) (citations omitted). This is the law today as it was forty-five years ago.2

_____________________ 1 377 U.S. 533, 586, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 1394 (1964). 2 See North Carolina v. Covington, 138 S. Ct. 2548, 2554 (2018) (“[S]tate legislatures have primary jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment[.]”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 150 n.30, 101 S. Ct. 2224, 2236 (1981) (“Moreover, even after a federal court has found a districting plan unconstitutional, redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative task which the federal courts should make every effort not to preempt.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted);