BATON ROUGE - In June of 2024, five members of the Metro Council at the time, Cleve Dunn, Carolyn Coleman, Darryl Hurst, Chauna Banks, and LaMont Cole, along with two Baton Rouge residents, filed a lawsuit against the city-parish over a map passed by the Metro Council in 2022, which they claim weakened black voting strength, violating the Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act.

"We presented maps where we feel was equitable, was a 6-6 council, which did not get the 7 votes to pass, and our colleagues voted 7-5 to maintain the status quo," Councilman Cleve Dunn said during a June 2024 press conference on the lawsuit.

The suit claims the map packs large numbers of black voters into majority-black council districts, allowing white members of the council to hold the majority and have an additional majority-white council district.

But according to court documents, the case was closed, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana versus Callais, which WBRZ Political Analyst James Hartman says he feels was a smart move.

"Well, the judge was very wise to stop the proceedings while the Callais was winding its way through the Supreme Court, but the judge is equally wise in bringing it back to life, so there could be some resolution to this," Hartman said.

Both parties were instructed by the judge to provide paperwork detailing the impacts of Callias on this specific case.

In documents filed by the attorney on behalf of the Metro Council members, they allege intentional discrimination and claim they have provided facts that are credible.

It goes on to say that the Metro Council's white majority overrode their own demographers' recommendation, and instead counted the black citizens, which they claim the Supreme Court says is not appropriate.

"The Supreme Court didn't strike down the Voting Rights Act. It didn't claim the whole law is unconstitutional, and they said that race can be a factor in drawing districts, but not the factor. The plaintiffs have a good argument that it was the dominant factor in this decision-making, with obvious results."

The city-parish claimed the Supreme Court held up section two of the Voting Rights Act, which "Imposes liability only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred."

"We need to stop looking at race as even a primary or major factor in redistricting, and look at other factors that are easily available, such as median income, crime rate, education levels, that sort of thing," Hartman said.

We reached out to attorneys for both parties involved in the case, but they declined to comment.