Johnson v. Ardoin

Note: The Brennan Center is not a participant in this case.

Case Background

Nine African American voters in Louisiana are challenging the state’s 2011 congressional plan as a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Plaintiffs allege that the legislature packed African-American voters into the Second Congressional District and split African-American voters among three other congressional districts, rather than unifying them to create a second majority-minority district, thereby having the effect of diluting their voting strength and political influence.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the map violates Section 2 of the VRA and enjoin the state from using the current map in any further congressional elections. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to require that the state adopt a new congressional plan that includes a second majority-minority district.

On July 31, 2018, the Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and on September 10, filed a separate motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2019, the court denied the first motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2019, the court denied the second motion to dismiss, rejecting, among other arguments, the Secretary of State’s contention that the suit should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to request a three-judge panel to hear their case. 

On October 7, 2019, the defendant filed a third-party complaint against U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the U.S. Department of Justice asking the court to either dismiss the case or issue a declaration that the Department of Justice erred in its preclearance review of the 2011 plan.

On October 17, 2019, the court granted the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the Fifth Circuit’s review in Thomas v. Bryant.

On September 29, 2020, the District Court lifted the stay in light of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Thomas v. Reeves (formerly Thomas v. Bryant), stating that the parties must show cause for why the court should not certify an interlocutory appeal on the three-judge panel issue.

On October 13, 2020, the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Documents 

District Court

• Complaint (June 13, 2018)
• Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (July 31, 2018)
• Joint Status Report (August 9, 2018)
• First Amended Complaint (August 21, 2018)
• Motion to Dismiss (September 10, 2018)
• Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (September 10, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition of Second Motion to Dismiss (October 12, 2018)
• Order Denying First Motion to Dismiss (March 12, 2019)
• Scheduling Order (May 10, 2019)
• Order Denying Second Motion to Dismiss (May 31, 2019)
• Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (September 16, 2019)
• Defendant’s Answer to First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses (September 23, 2019)
• Defendant’s Motion to Stay (September 25, 2019)
• Third Party Complaint (October 7, 2019)
• Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (October 7, 2019)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion to Stay (October 16, 2019)
• Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (April 22, 2020)
• Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (October 8, 2020)
• Final Judgment (October 13, 2020)