thesis with concession example

Home » Writers-House Blog » Using Concessions in a Thesis Statement

Using Concessions in a Thesis Statement

A thesis statement is the most important part of your argument. It should clearly indicate your position on the topic and provide your readers with an understanding of what you will discuss in your paper. Sometimes, thesis statements include concessions. Concessions are statements that admit that your paper doesn’t address some important issues or acknowledge a different perspective. Learn more about concessions in this quick guide from Writers-House.com

Writing Concessions

Also known as concessive clauses, concessions usually start with a concession phrase or word, such as “even though,” “although,” “regardless of,” “despite,” or “while.” For example: “Even though coal mining creates jobs, its impact on the environment outweighs such benefits.” The same thesis statement can also end with a concession: “Coal mining creates thousands of jobs; however, its negative impact on the environment is a much more important issue.”

Where to Use Concessions

Usually, a concession precedes the main part of a thesis statement. This approach allows you to make sure that readers will focus on your idea because people tend to remember the last idea in a series. This approach also helps to prepare readers for the first paragraph, which will likely support your thesis. Keep in mind that a concessionary can also be an independent sentence. We recommend that you experiment with different approaches to choose the most persuasive one.

Addressing Opposite Points

One of the main purposes of a concession is to acknowledge another perspective. If you demonstrate that you understand a competing point, your concession can make your argument more authoritative. Thesis statements of this kind are very effective because they don’t follow a binary logic. Concessions allow you to demonstrate the complexity of a topic, explaining different perspectives and the strengths of your point.

Limit Your Scope

A concession can also help you indicate that you’re aware of other aspects of your topic but not going to discuss them in the paper. Such a concession is necessary if you write about a broad topic because you need to narrow down your thesis. Acknowledge other aspects of the topic in the form of a concession and then clarify what exactly you’re going to consider.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Place your order

• Essay Writer
• Essay Writing Service
• Term Paper Writing
• Research Paper Writing
• Assignment Writing Service
• Cover Letter Writing
• CV Writing Service
• Resume Writing Service
• 5-Paragraph Essays
• Paper By Subjects
• Affordable Papers
• Prime quality of each and every paper
• Everything written per your instructions
• Native-speaking expert writers
• 100% authenticity guaranteed
• Timely delivery
• Attentive 24/7 customer care team
• Benefits for return customers
• Affordable pricing

Definition of Concession

Concession is a literary device used in argumentative writing, where one acknowledges a point made by one’s opponent. It allows for different opinions and approaches toward an issue, indicating an understanding of what causes the actual debate or controversy. It demonstrates that the writer is a mature thinker, and has considered the issue from all angles.

Concession writing style also shows that the writer is a logical and fair-minded person, able to realize that every argument has several sides to consider before it is presented. This type of writing can be considered strong as it finds common ground between the writer and his opponent.

Concession Examples

Example #1:.

“Dad, I know taking a trip to another country with my friends may be expensive and unsafe, but I have studied so hard the past year and I think I deserve a vacation. You already know how responsible I have been all my life; I don’t think there will be any problem.”

The above statement is an example of concession writing. It demonstrates the negative aspects of traveling as a young group of boys, but argues against this with the fact that this particular boy has always been a responsible person and is not likely to get into trouble.

Example #2:

“I agree that many students act and lie about being sick, so that they can avoid school for whatever reason. However, most students who do not come to school are actually sick. Being sick, they should be focusing on getting better, not worrying about school and grades just because some students take advantage of the absentee policy.”

This statement also shows the concession form of writing where the writer agrees that some students do lie about being sick, and that the writer is able to understand this issue. At the same time, the writer argues as to why students who are actually sick suffer because of those irresponsible students.

Example #3:

“An individual does have his own right to freedom, but medical evidence proves that second-hand smoke is harmful. Nobody has the right to harm the health of another, and smoking does just that.”

Using concession, the writer has noted that everybody has freedom rights, but argues about the fact that nobody has the right to harm another person’s health, no matter what the case is.

Example #4:

“It is true that issues may sometimes become polarized and debated heatedly. Certainly, there is a need for matters of public concern to be discussed rationally. But that does not mean that such concerns should not be expressed and investigated. After all, improper interference with academic freedom was found to have taken place. And the allegations raised by doctors are ones which deserve further inquiry.”

The above statement demonstrates the concession writing technique, where the writer agrees that debating on issues can turn into a heated argument, but that does not mean the issues should stop being discussed and investigated. Using concession, the writer has considered the different viewpoints of the issue, and then stated his argument.

Example #5: Politics and the English Language (By George Orwell)

“I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail.”

This is another example of concession writing showing that the writer is a fair person who has thought about the issue before giving his opinion. The writer agrees with the fact that we cannot do anything to develop the language. However it is not true if we go into details, Orwell says, because writers influence it too.

Function of Concession

Concession writing acknowledges that there are many different views to a story . This type of writing allows for different opinions that can or could be made toward an issue. It also shows that all points, positive as well as negative, have been considered before an argument is put forward. Presenting the other side and then arguing against it with valid points can make it a very strong piece of writing. Acknowledging the other side demonstrates respect for the other opinion. The concession writing technique is also known used as a method of persuasion and reasoning.

Post navigation

What Is a Concession in a Thesis Statement?

Elissa hansen.

In academic essays, the thesis statement is the heart of your argument: It tells readers exactly what your paper will discuss and what position you’ll take on the topic. Some thesis statements include concessions, which are statements that acknowledge a different, valid perspective on the topic or that admit that your argument doesn’t address certain concerns related to the topic.

Explore this article

• Crafting Concessions
• Concession Placement
• Addressing Competing Voices
• Limiting Your Scope

1 Crafting Concessions

Concessions, also called “concessive clauses,” usually begin with a concession word or phrase such as “although,” “even though,” “regardless of,” “while” or “despite,” according to Edward C. Martin, law professor at Samford University. For example, a thesis statement that follows a concession might read, “Although coal mining creates thousands of jobs in the United States, the environmental costs of coal mining outweigh its economic benefits.” Another way to present a concession is to state the concession as a fact, then to use a contrasting conjunction when you state your own thesis: “Coal mining does create thousands of jobs in the United States; yet, the environmental costs of coal mining outweigh its economic benefits.”

2 Concession Placement

As these examples suggest, the concession usually precedes the thesis statement itself. This order is mainly to ensure that readers remember your idea most vividly; in general, people most clearly retain the last idea that they read in a series of ideas. This order also prepares the reader to launch into your first paragraph, which will likely begin with a topic sentence that supports your thesis. Note that the concession can be a separate sentence from the thesis statement. If you’re writing a concession to go with your thesis statement, experiment with different word arrangements to see which one sounds most persuasive.

3 Addressing Competing Voices

The most common use of concessions is to acknowledge that other perspectives exist on your topic. By demonstrating that you’ve understood an alternative or competing argument, a concession can bolster your argument’s authority. This kind of thesis statement can show that you’re not a binary thinker: “Although the North and the South both worried that former slaves would compete with white workers for jobs, the North dealt with former slaves far differently during the Civil War than the South did.” The concession adds complexity to a discussion of differences by acknowledging that similarities also exist.

4 Limiting Your Scope

Concessions can also clarify that you’ve considered other aspects of your topic but decided not to discuss them in this paper. This kind of concession is crucial if you’re dealing with a broad topic, since you’ll have to limit your thesis. Such a concession and thesis statement might read, “Abortion rights remain hotly contested at both the federal and state levels for complex social, economic, legal and religious reasons. However, by focusing specifically on religious organizations’ arguments against abortion in Wisconsin, I show that ….” When using this kind of concession, make sure to clarify why the narrower perspective you’ve chosen is important for readers to consider.

About the Author

Elissa Hansen has more than nine years of editorial experience, and she specializes in academic editing across disciplines. She teaches university English and professional writing courses, holding a Bachelor of Arts in English and a certificate in technical communication from Cal Poly, a Master of Arts in English from the University of Wyoming, and a doctorate in English from the University of Minnesota.

Related Articles

How to Write a Discursive Essay

How to Identify a Hypothesis

How to Write Constructive Essays

How to Write a Propagandist Essay

Who Advocated States Rights & Nullification?

Nullification Theory in the Civil War

Essay Paper Ideas on Federalism

What Are the Differences Between Bias & Fallacy?

What Is a Lead-in Statement?

How to Write a Paper on Strengths & Weaknesses

What Were Jefferson's Beliefs About Government & States?

How to Write a Constructive Speech

The Definition of Federalism and Democracy

What Is a Subordinate Idea in Writing?

How to Write a Thesis Statement in High School Essays

How to Write an MLA Argument Essay

Why Did Texas Secede From the Union & Join the Confederate...

Extending Slavery to U.S. Territories During the Mexican...

How to Write a Historical Persuasive Essay

A Writer's Reference for How to Write a Thesis Statement

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4.5 Identifying Concessions and Counter Arguments

Learning objectives.

• Identify the parts of a reasonable concession
• Evaluate paragraphs for concessions
• Apply concession format to a series of sentences

Let’s take some time to learn how to concede logical points and then to counter them appropriately. These skills are INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. Oftentimes, only the strongest and most confident writers can write in a concession-style. Your use of concession-style thesis statements, and concessions throughout a response, signals to your readers that you are a confident and capable writer and critical thinker. Concessions are invaluable to DISCOURSE and DIALOGUE, the two most important parts of responsible argumentation.

The purpose behind this chapter and its activities is to teach you how to concede strong points, and more importantly, how to counter them effectively.  Students new to writing arguments often think that including concessions will weaken their argument or that a reader will be more likely to agree with them if they pretend that no weaknesses exist in the argument. This assumption is untrue. In fact, your willingness to admit where the prompt writer’s argument has value and either present an extension of that argument or move it in a different direction is really impressive.

What is more, you will be learning to grow comfortable in conceding that your own argument might have limitations. All arguments have limitations, whether they belong to a prompt writer or to you. Remember the final instruction given to you before all prompt responses?

Your essay should also consider at least one objection a reader might have to  your  argument. You may respond to this objection in different ways. For example, you may argue against the objection, or you may acknowledge that the objection is a good point and incorporate it into your argument. It’s up to you.

At a very basic level, the purpose behind learning counter-arguments is because the prompt instructions on each prompt ask you to do so.  The goal of that instruction is to teach you how to strengthen your argument.  Acknowledging weaker points (or strong points from your opposition) makes your writing more compelling because it demonstrates to your reader that 1) you have actually considered the topic without making snap judgments, and 2) you are not hiding the weaknesses of your argument from your reader, hoping that they will miss them.

More importantly, it creates an honest relationship between you and your reader, which is essential because some audiences will know something about the topic of your argument already, and they could have oppositions to offer.  Ultimately, you need to learn how to concede and counter in writing because you cannot respond to a reader’s objections verbally, as you might in a conversation.  The greater challenge is to anticipate the objections and respond to them before they come up. This strategy is akin to an artist writing a diss track in which they not only identify faults in their rival, but also in themselves. What ammunition is left for their rival in response? When you “anticipate and defend,” there is little left for the opposition. It is a proven strategy.

To begin the process, we need to understand how to make reasonable concessions first.  It’s likely that you may have already learned how to make one of these two types of concessions early in your WRIT course, but let’s look over them again.

First, read the following prompt below.  You can also Download a PDF version , if you prefer.

Drink Your Way to Success Randolph Hennepin

The following editorial appeared in the May/June 2014 issue of Today’s Student

     Success in just about any profession often depends on a person’s ability to network, and to develop contacts. A prime way to network is over drinks. In fact, a person who does not drink is less likely to be successful than one who does . Students who spend time drinking rather than studying are ensuring their eventual success.

     Facts are facts. A recent study “found drinkers earn between 10 and 14 per cent more than non-drinkers.” Further, according to the same study, men who go to a bar at least once a month earn an additional 7 per cent. The reason for the success of drinkers, according to the author of the study, is that “Social drinking builds social capital. Social drinkers are networking, building relationships and adding contacts to their [phones] that result in bigger paycheques.”

     Perhaps this study is not good news for people who do not drink. Perhaps these people feel that there are other ways to develop contacts, such as getting involved in charitable organizations or meeting colleagues for breakfast instead of in a bar after work. While these strategies do have merit, neither is as effective as the social networking that occurs while drinking.

     In fact, a reasonable conclusion from this study would be to encourage students to learn how to drink. Knowing how to drink without embarrassing oneself is a key skill in business, as the above study proves. Therefore, students should not feel guilty about spending evenings drinking instead of working or studying, since drinking will lead to their eventual success. Students should not focus on school other than to do well enough to pass; otherwise, they are doomed to earn less than their peers who put their study time to good use by hitting the bottle.

Now, look at these straightforward responses to the prompt and determine which one uses a  general concession,  and which one uses a  specific concession .

• Introduction: Version 1
• Introduction: Version 2

Activity 1: Identifying Concessions

Which introduction in the above example uses a more specific concession? Vote on your choice below and then view the results. Click  the accordion below to learn more.

The next section includes practice activities for concessions and counterarguments.

Putting the Pieces Together Copyright © 2020 by Andrew Stracuzzi and André Cormier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is Concession? Definition, Usage, and Literary Examples

Concession definition.

A  concession  (kuhn-SEH-shun) in literature is a point yielded to an opposing  perspective  during an argument. It allows a writer to acknowledge that information presented by an opponent has some amount of validity and should be considered.

Concessions show that a writer doesn’t have tunnel vision when it comes to their subject; instead, they possess a well-rounded, mature perspective that considers other viewpoints. At the same time, a concession doesn’t mean the opponent’s entire argument is correct. It only denotes that one point is legitimate, while the rest of the argument remains faulty or weak.

The word  concession  comes from the Latin  concedere , meaning “to give way.”

Where Concessions Are Used

Concessions are common features of  argumentative  writing. Essays, academic papers, and other nonfiction writing employ concessions so the reader has a better idea of the dissenting view and the author’s willingness to consider alternative positions. The author will typically grant a concession and immediately qualify it with a  but  or  yet .

Take this excerpt from a 1901 essay by Mark Twain, in which he writes about the government’s decision to fly the American flag during the Philippine-American War:

I was not properly reared, and had the illusion that a flag was a thing which must be sacredly guarded against shameful uses and unclean contacts, lest it suffer pollution; and so when it was sent out to the Philippines to float over a wanton war and a robbing expedition I supposed it was polluted, and in an ignorant moment I said so. But I stand corrected. I concede and acknowledge that it was only the government that sent it on such an errand that was polluted. Let us compromise on that. I am glad to have it that way. For our flag could not well stand pollution, never having been used to it, but it is different with the administration.

Using  but  in the final  sentence  lets Twain concede that those who disagree with him are correct that the flag itself is not polluted or even intrinsically pollutable—though the presidential administration at the time is both. Thanks to his concession, Twain can admit to his prior error while making a larger statement about political corruption—and exercise his trademark wit.

Concessions appear in fiction,  poetry , and  plays  as well. They make for compelling storytelling devices that often reveal truths about the character or speaker or the work itself. Tennessee Williams’s  The Glass Menagerie  opens with Tom making a concession:

Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.

Tom freely admits the will contain illusion while confessing—with the word  but —that he is no magician and no dishonesty will occur. The illusion, he says, will only amplify the truth it conceals.

Concessions in Politics and  Rhetoric

Concessions are utilized in speeches and debates to inform or  persuade  listeners of certain facts or ideas. For instance, in his famous  Gettysburg Address , Abraham Lincoln said:

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

Lincoln conceded that the world may forget his words, but it will always remember the sacrifices of the soldiers who gave up their lives.

A concession speech is a slightly different type of concession. It is a public speech in which a losing candidate yields to a winning candidate after the results of a vote are determined or, at least, foreseeable given the current vote count. This is from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 concession speech:

I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it too, and so do tens of millions of Americans who invested their hopes and dreams in this effort. This is painful and it will be for a long time, but I want you to remember this. Our campaign was never about one person or even one election, it was about the country we love and about building an America that’s hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted.

Clinton acknowledges that her loss is a personally painful event for many people but that her campaign always had a larger focus on a more united and compassionate America. By doing this, she reminds listeners to continue the hard work of progress and not get bogged down in personal defeat.

These speeches, however, may not include individual concessions at all. The overall speech itself is the concession: the forfeiting of the race and the recognition of the winner.

Concessions vs Rebuttals

Concessions are not  rebuttals . Concessions affirm and agree with someone else’s argument, while rebuttals directly challenge someone else’s argument. Put another way, concessions are allowances, while rebuttals are counterarguments. A concession admits that an opposing side has a valid point, and a rebuttal sets out to prove that the opposing side’s point is not valid.

The Function of Concessions

A concession’s primary function is to show common ground between two opposing ideas. In a debate or a written work on a particularly contentious topic, a concession demonstrates a fair approach to the subject—one that isn’t so fanatical that it’s illogical or absurd.

There is also a tactical component involved in concessions. The writer or speaker’s use of concessions paints them as a level-headed, reasonable person who can hear different sides of an issue. This will often make the audience take them more seriously and be more open to what they have to say.

Further Resources on Concessions

The Odegaard Writing & Research Center at the University of Washington delves into  concessions and counterarguments in academic writing .

Business Insider  has a list of  the 10 most memorable concession speeches in United States history .

Dr. Matt Kuefler offers insights into  writing concession paragraphs  and where you should place them within an essay.

Related Terms

4. MAKING A CONCESSION Why should I make a concession to a different point of view? Let's face it: in life, things are seldom entirely one thing or the other, and there is almost always a bit of ambiguity or uncertainty. So it is unrealistic to suppose that your thesis, however clear and thoughtful it is, will be entirely convincing or account for all of the facts. Rather than ignore facts that don't fit your theory, therefore, it is usually best to make some concession to an alternative point of view. That is, you accept that someone arguing from a different perspective has some valid reason or reasons for doing so, just not as compelling as the reasons to support your own point of view. How should such a concession be organized? It is best to develop what I call a paragraph of concession. You begin this paragraph by admitting that there are some who do not accept your thesis, and that there is the possibility for holding a different point of view. You then provide one or two reasons for holding such a point of view, reasons that work against your thesis. But -- and this is essential in a paragraph of concession -- you need to end that paragraph with a sentence or two suggesting that this reason for holding an alternative point of view is ultimately wrong: insignificant or an exception to the rule. In other words, find some means to undermine this concession and return your reader to your point of view at the end of your paragraph of concession. Example: Suppose that your thesis is something like: Charlemagne can hardly be considered as one of the great emperors of European history. Your reasons for holding this thesis, developed into topic sentences, might include: Charlemagne's empire fell apart within fifty years of his death, which hardly befits a truly great emperor. Even at the height of his powers, Charlemagne did not seem to exercise much control over the noblemen of his empire. Nor did Charlemagne extend his control to the churchmen of his empire, as other medieval emperors had. And so on. Your paragraph of concession would have to concede that in at least some regards, Charlemagne should be considered as a great emperor. It could go something like this: Some have argued that Charlemagne was the greatest of European emperors. After all, most European emperors who followed after him borrowed ideas or images from his reign. The Holy Roman Emperors were always crowned at Rome, as he had been. The kings of eastern Europe mostly adopted a version of his name, karoly , as their title. And when Hitler founded his Nazi domination of Europe, he called it the Third Reich or Empire, the first having been that of Charlemagne. Still, these later rulers based these ideas and images on a misperception of Charlemagne's reign. In the end, the myth of Charlemagne proved much more durable than the fact of his empire. Note how I begin this paragraph, "Some have argued . . ." and then leading into an alternative thesis. This different kind of opening shows my readers that it is not like my other paragraphs, and it is not something that I am arguing myself. You could start this paragraph in a number of ways: "It could be argued . . ." or "Some have suggested that . . . " or "It might be possible to consider that . . . " or anything that lets your reader know that this is not your own point of view. Then I follow up this sentence with what I consider to be the main reason for someone to hold that alternative point of view: "most European emperors who followed after him borrowed ideas or images from his reign." I follow that with, in this case, three examples to support this reason: 1) his influence on the Holy Roman Emperors, 2) his influence on eastern European monarchs, and 3) his influence on the Nazis. But I end the paragraph by clearly dismissing the importance of this alternative thesis. Note that I begin this sentence undermining the different point of view with the word "Still, . . . ". That lets my reader know that I am changing perspectives. Or you could begin this part of the paragraph with "Nonetheless, . . ." or "However, . . ." or something like that. And both of the last two sentences of the paragraph above return the reader to my own point of view. Where should the paragraph of concession be situated in the essay? In most cases, it is best to place this paragraph of concession after you have taken the reader through all of the points in your favor, when you are likeliest to have him or her already agreeing with you, and undercutting your opponent's arguments is just one more reason to agree with you more wholeheartedly. In most cases, therefore, it is best to place this paragraph of concession just before your conclusion, as the second-to-last paragraph . In some cases, though, it is best to place this paragraph of concession immediately after your introduction, in the second paragraph of the whole essay . Mostly this makes sense if you think that your reader is likely to hold a point of view different from the one you will be arguing. This can happen, for example, if you are arguing something that seems to run counter to what is commonly believed (for example, that Charlemagne was a great European emperor). In such cases, it often works best to undermine that common point of view before you begin your own reasons for holding a minority opinion. There is flexibility in the placement of this paragraph, then, but not so much that it would seem a good idea to place it in the middle of the essay, after you have addressed some of the reasons for your thesis but not others. If you feel that the paragraph of concession works particularly well after one of the reasons you provide for your thesis, then make that the last reason you give in support of your thesis. A valid argument could be made for not including a paragraph of concession at all. When you think about it, the whole point of your essay is to persuade your reader of your point of view, so it may not be a good idea to provide them with reasons or examples for believing something else instead. But honesty to history demands that some concession to historical facts be made, when those facts might be known or discovered by your reader, who might dismiss the whole of your argument by saying that you were biased or uninformed. Almost always, then, this paragraph of concession is a good idea. This last paragraph I wrote is itself a paragraph of concession, you'll note. See how well it works to persuade the reader of your point of view?  

Concession Used in Rhetoric

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Concession is an argumentative strategy by which a speaker or writer acknowledges (or appears to acknowledge) the validity of an opponent's point. Verb: concede . Also known as  concessio .

The rhetorical power of concession, says Edward P.J. Corbett, resides in an ethical appeal : "The audience gets the impression that the person capable of making frank confessions and generous concessions are not only a good person but a person so confident of the strength of his or her position that he or she can afford to concede points to the opposition" ( Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student , 1999).

Concessions may be either serious or ironic .

Etymology From the Latin, "to yield"

Examples and Observations

• "Politics makes an excellent test of concession , in part because the tactic is so refreshing. See if you can go through an entire discussion without overtly disagreeing with your opponent. She: I'm willing to give up a little privacy so the government can keep me safe. You:  Safety's important. She:  Not that they're going to tap my phone. You:  No, you'd never rock the boat. She: Of course, I'll speak up if I disagree with what's going on. You:  I know you will. And   let  the government keep a file on you. You may see a little smoke come out of your friend's ears at this point. Do not be alarmed; it's simply a natural sign of mental gears being thrown in reverse. The Greeks loved concession for this very reason: it lets opponents talk their way right into your corner." (Jay Heinrichs,  Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion , rev. ed. Three Rivers Press, 2013)
• "It has been said that Rowcliff is handsome, and I'll concede that his six feet of meat is distributed well enough, but his face reminds me of a camel with a built-in sneer." (Rex Stout, Please Pass the Guilt , 1973)
• Mark Twain on the American Flag and the Philippine-American War "I am not finding fault with this use of our flag; for in order not to seem eccentric I have swung around, now, and joined the nation in the conviction that nothing can sully a flag. I was not properly reared, and had the illusion that a flag was a thing which must be sacredly guarded against shameful uses and unclean contacts, lest it suffer pollution; and so when it was sent out to the Philippines to float over a wanton war and a robbing expedition I supposed it was polluted, and in an ignorant moment I said so. But I stand corrected. I concede and acknowledge that it was only the government that sent it on such an errand that was polluted. Let us compromise on that. I am glad to have it that way. For our flag could not well stand pollution, never having been used to it, but it is different with the administration." (Mark Twain, 1902; quoted by Albert Bigelow Paine in Mark Twain: A Biography , 1912
• Orwell's Qualified Concession "I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail ." (George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language, " 1946)
• Concession in Classical Rhetoric - "In traditional rhetorical manuals there are a number of devices that could be subsumed under the concept of concession : Quintilian's praesumptio or prolepsis , defined as anticipating by 'confessing something we can afford to concede'; and Cicero's praemunitio , or defending 'by anticipating objections to some point we intend to make later." (Alison Weber,  Teresa of Avila and the Rhetoric of Femininity . Princeton University Press, 1990) - "Quintilian discusses  concession , confession, and agreement as allied figures  'which have a strong family resemblance.' All three are used to concede points that 'can do our case no harm.' The act of concession implies a strong, confident position' ( Institutiones Oratoriae . IX.ii.51-52)." (Charles A. Beaumont, "Swift's Rhetoric in 'A Modest Proposal.'" Landmark Essays on Rhetoric and Literature, ed. by Craig Kallendorf. Erlbaum, 1999) - "An example of a serious concession  is in Cicero's Pro Roscio Amerino --'Very well; you cannot bring forward any motive. Although it ought to be considered at once that I have won my case, I will not insist upon my right, and will make a concession to you in this case, which I would not make in any other, so convinced am I of my client's innocence. I do not ask you to say why Sextus Roscius killed his father, I ask you how he killed him." (Giambattista Vico,  The Art of Rhetoric: (Institutiones Oratoriae ), edited and translated by Giorgio A. Pinton and Arthur W. Shippee. Rodopi, 1996) 

Pronunciation: kon-SESH-un

• Conceding and Refuting in English
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition
• Definition and Examples of Procatalepsis in Rhetoric
• Confirmation in Speech and Rhetoric
• Definition and Examples of Valid Arguments
• What is a Concessive in English Grammar?
• Subordinate Clauses: Concessive, Time, Place and Reason Clauses
• AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
• Invention (Composition and Rhetoric)
• Usage and Examples of a Rebuttal
• Pathos in Rhetoric
• Exemplum in Rhetoric
• Definition and Examples of Praeteritio (Preteritio) in Rhetoric
• What Is Rhetoric?
• Artistic Proofs: Definitions and Examples

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Paragraphs: Concession

Transitions : although it is true that, certainly, despite, granted that, however, indeed, granted, I admit that, in fact, in spite of, it may appear that, naturally, nevertheless, of course, once in a while, sometimes, still, yet

Example : Mason (2007) and Holmes (2009) vehemently disagree on the fundamental components of primary school education. Despite this strong disagreement, the scholars do agree on the overall importance of formal education for all young children.

Explanation : In these two sentences, the author is highlighting a disagreement between the two scholars. The author begins the second sentence with the transition phrase, "Despite this strong disagreement," however, to make a concession that Mason and Holmes do agree on the importance of formal education for young children.

Transitions Video Playlist

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

• Academic Paragraphs: Introduction to Paragraphs and the MEAL Plan (video transcript)
• Academic Paragraphs: Types of Transitions Part 1: Transitions Between Paragraphs (video transcript)
• Academic Paragraphs: Types of Transitions Part 2: Transitions Within Paragraphs (video transcript)
• Academic Paragraphs: Appropriate Use of Explicit Transitions (video transcript)
• Engaging Writing: Incorporating Transitions (video transcript)
• Engaging Writing: Examples of Incorporating Transitions (video transcript)
• Previous Page: Chronology
• Next Page: Contradict
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Literary Devices

Literary devices, terms, and elements, concession definition.

A concession is something yielded to an opponent during an argument, such as a point or a fact. Concessions often occur during formal arguments and counterarguments, such as in debates or academic writing. A writer or debater may agree with one aspect of his or her opponent’s ideas and yet disagree with the rest. The writer will allow this one aspect to be true, while proving how the rest is wrong. Conceding certain points can have certain tactical benefits, such as showing how some aspects of the opponent’s arguments are fallacious.

The word concession comes from the Latin word concessionem , which has the same definition of concession, i.e., “allowing or conceding.”

Common Examples of Concession

We can find examples of concessions in debates easily. Usually the person making an argument will state a concession, then follow that with “but” to show how an opponent may be making a misguided argument. Other concessions may start with the phrase “it is true that…” or “certainly.” Here are some concession examples in bold:

• Inequality of wealth is not a new concept. The gap between the super-rich tycoons of today and the poorest employee is not as great as a century ago, given the benefits the government provides. But that does not make it acceptable.
• It is true that issues may sometimes become polarized and debated heatedly. Certainly, there is a need for matters of public concern to be discussed rationally. But that does not mean that such concerns should not be expressed and investigated.
• It is too early to say whether these reforms will prove successful. But the fruits of the policies can perhaps be seen in the fact that the fall in this year’s exam pass rate is negligible compared with last year.
• Piracy and cost-free use of copyright materials deliver short-term gains to users. But if we fail to safeguard the rightful interests of authors, singers and film-makers, all will suffer as they become less resourceful in exploiting their creativity.

We can also find examples of concessions in political debates, such as in Governor John Kasich’s remarks at a 2015 GOP debate:

Our unemployment is half of what it was. Our fracking industry, energy industry may have contributed 20,000 , but if Mr. Trump understood that the real jobs come in the downstream, not in the upstream, but in the downstream. And that’s where we’re going to get our jobs.

Significance of Concession in Literature

Concession examples are somewhat more difficult to find in literature than in other forms of writing, such as academic writing or journalism. This is because authors of literary works don’t usually make arguments that are as explicit as in these other forms of writing. However, some authors will create characters who make concessions to each other in conversation or arguments. Authors also may choose to write concessions to the audience as if guessing what the audience is thinking about a certain situation and writing in response to those assumptions. These are often the more interesting concession examples, as they set up a perceived dialogue between author and reader that, although it is actually one-way, seems to include and challenge the reader.

Examples of Concession in Literature

PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.

( The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare)

In this famous courtroom scene from William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice , the character of Portia has dressed up as a lawyer and gives a well-known speech about mercy. As part of this monologue, Portia makes the concession that a monarch’s sceptre “shows the force of temporal power,” and that is leads to “dread and fear of kings.” She clearly understands where a king’s power comes from. Yet she believes—and argues—that mercy is an even more impressive thing for a leader to wield. This is because leaders don’t necessarily need to show mercy, and in so doing they show the power of their character. Portia strengthens her argument for mercy by acknowledging that which is usually attributed as the mightiest aspect of a ruler.

She has committed no crime, she has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance, but I cannot pity her: she is white.

( To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee)

The above excerpt is another courtroom scene, this time from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird . Atticus Finch is arguing the case for his defendant Tom Robinson. He tries to turn the accusation back against Mayella Ewell, the girl who originally accused Tom Robinson of a crime. In this closing speech, Atticus concedes the point that Mayella has not committed a crime in falsely accusing Tom. Atticus also makes the concession that Mayella herself is a victim, though not of the crime on trial; she is a victim of poverty. Yet Atticus affirms that these concessions aren’t enough either to sympathize with what she has done or even what she has undergone. The fact that she is white automatically gives her privileges and thus makes her accusation against an innocent black man all the more inexcusable.

TOM: Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.

( The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams)

Tennessee Williams’s play The Glass Menagerie contains an interesting example of concession right in the very opening lines. The main character and narrator of the play, Tom, addresses the audience directly in his first few lines. He acknowledges that the guise of a play might make everything seem more fictional, and makes the concession that he has “tricks in [his] pocket” and “things up [his] sleeve.” Yet he avers that behind all the tricks, there is much truth in this play. This is an example of a concession directed at the assumptions of the audience that Tom and Tennessee Williams are working against.

Test Your Knowledge of Concession

1. Which of the following statements is the best concession definition? A. A rebuttal against something the author disagrees with. B. An allowance of a common point with an opponent. C. A demonstration of the fallacy in an opponent’s argument. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #1″] Answer: B is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

2. Why might an author choose to use an example of a concession? A. To address what the readers might be thinking and answer this with the author’s own ideas. B. To convince the reader that the author is the only one with the right point of view. C. To convince the reader that he or she is completely wrong. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #2″] Answer: A is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

3. Which of the following statements is not an example of concession from a debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney in 2012? A.

OBAMA: And to the [your credit, Romney], you supported us going into Libya and the coalition that we organized. But when it came time to making sure that Gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, Governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle.

ROMNEY: I congratulate [Obama] on — on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess.

ROMNEY: With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we’ve seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events.

[spoiler title=”Answer to Question #3″] Answer: C is the correct answer. Though Romney uses “but,” which could often signal that someone has just made a concession, he is pointing out the failures of policy rather than agreeing with anything that was done.[/spoiler]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

5.8: Writing Concession and Counterargument

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 123878

• Gabriel Winer & Elizabeth Wadell
• Berkeley City College & Laney College via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)

Reading about multiple perspectives

When we read an article or a book, we might imagine we are listening to the voice of the author: one voice (or maybe two or a few voices if there are multiple authors). That one voice is always speaking from a particular point of view, from within a particular culture, and from inside a time period. The author is also not speaking alone, to an empty room. As we read, we can also imagine we are listening to that speaker take their turn in a huge and timeless discussion with thousands of participants, in which the speakers build on and evaluate each others' ideas and argue with each other. Each new study, article, or book adds facts, ideas, and layers of meaning to the discussion. This exchange of ideas, with each new contribution referencing past texts, has been called "the Great Conversation."

Traditionally, many people talk about this "Great Conversation" as something that happens in the Liberal Arts disciplines of Western (European and American) universities: subjects like philosophy, literature, history, the social sciences, and the arts. Scholars discuss competing explanations for a historical event, or the meaning of a line in a poem, or whether a government policy is fair. But great conversations about truth, meaning, and justice also happen around the world and outside of formal academic discourse. They take place on Twitter and TikTok, in movies, in popular magazines, and in street protests, such as the one in Figure 5.8.1. Many texts you read in college classes are taking their turn in this imaginary discussion: they argue for their position, and explain and respond to other perspectives on the topic. 

Let's look at an example:

Noticing multiple perspectives

Notice this!

As you read this article, ask yourself

• What is the writers' thesis?
• What other positions do they explain and then fight back against?
• Where are the places where the writers shift perspectives?
• Which connecting words signal the change?

Reading from an online magazine: ‘ Plastic-free ’ fashion is not as clean or green as it seems

We have all become more aware of the environmental impact of our clothing choices. The fashion industry has seen a rise in “green”, “eco” and “sustainable” clothing. This includes an increase in the use of natural fibres, such as wool, hemp, and cotton, as synthetic fabrics, like polyester, acrylic and nylon, have been vilified by some.

However, the push to go “natural” obscures a more complex picture.

Natural fibres in fashion garments are products of multiple transformation processes, most of which are reliant on intensive manufacturing as well as advanced chemical manipulation. While they are presumed to biodegrade, the extent to which they do has been contested by a handful of studies. Natural fibres can be preserved over centuries and even millennia in certain environments. Where fibres are found to degrade they may release chemicals, for example from dyes, into the environment.

When they have been found in environmental samples, natural textile fibres are often present in comparable concentrations than their plastic alternatives. Yet, very little is known of their environmental impact. Therefore, until they do biodegrade, natural fibres will present the same physical threat as plastic fibres. And, unlike plastic fibres, the interactions between natural fibres and common chemical pollutants and pathogens are not fully understood.

Fashion’s environmental footprint

It is within this scientific context that fashion’s marketing of alternative fibre use is problematic. However well-intentioned, moves to find alternatives to plastic fibres pose real risks of exacerbating the unknown environmental impacts of non-plastic particles.

To assert that all these problems can be resolved by buying “natural” simplifies the environmental crisis we face. To promote different fibre use without fully understanding its environmental ramifications suggests a disingenuous engagement with environmental action. It incites “superficial green” purchasing that exploits a culture of plastic anxiety. Their message is clear: buy differently, buy “better”, but don’t stop buying.

Yet the “better” and “alternative” fashion products are not without complex social and environmental injustices. Cotton, for example, is widely grown in countries with little legislation protecting the environment and human health.

The drying up of the Aral Sea in central Asia, formally the fourth largest lake in the world, is associated with the irrigation of cotton fields that dry up the rivers that feed it. This has decimated biodiversity and devastated the region’s fishing industry. The processing of natural fibres into garments is also a major source of chemical pollution, where factory wastewaters are discharged into freshwater systems, often with little or no treatment.

Organic cotton and Woolmark wool are perhaps the most well-known natural fabrics being used. Their certified fibres represent a welcomed material change, introducing to the marketplace new fibres that have codified, improved production standards. However, they still contribute fibrous particles into the environment over their lifetime.

More generally, fashion’s systemic low pay, deadly working conditions, and extreme environmental degradation demonstrate that too often our affordable fashion purchases come at a higher price to somebody and somewhere.

Slow down fast fashion

It is clear then that a radical change to our purchasing habits is required to address fashion’s environmental crisis. A crisis that is not defined by plastic pollution alone.

We must reassess and change our attitudes towards our clothing and reform the whole lifecycle of our garments. This means making differently, buying less and buying second hand. It also means owning for longer, repurposing, remaking and mending.

Fashion’s role in the plastic pollution problem has contributed to emotive headlines, in which purchasing plastic-fibred clothing has become highly moralised. In buying plastic-fibred garments, consumers are framed complicit in poisoning the oceans and food supply. These limited discourses shift accountability onto the consumer to “buy natural”. However, they do little to equally challenge the environmental and social ills of these natural fibres and the retailers’ responsibilities to them.

Thomas Stanton , PhD researcher in the Geography and Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham and Kieran Phelan , PhD Researcher in economic geography, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

When you write a paper, you are contributing to this "Great Conversation," and you also have to make these same moves. In an argumentative paper, you argue for your own perspective and support your main idea with evidence from other writers who agree with you. However, another important part of your job is to explain other points of view on the topic and respond to them with counterargument and/or concession.

Writing about multiple perspectives

Which perspectives should i include.

Sometimes, if you are writing about a controversial topic with clear opposite sides, it will be easy to identify different perspectives. It's like a debate. Here's an example:

• Thesis: The government should strengthen regulations on water pollution from factories.
• Opposite perspective: Opponents of this plan argue that regulations are not an effective way to reduce pollution.

But "multiple perspectives" doesn't always mean "opposite perspectives." The big questions we think deeply about often lead to more complicated discussions. If you have a more nuanced thesis, it might be harder to think of what the other perspectives are. Here's an example:

• Thesis: Although labor conditions in sweatshops are clearly human rights violations that demand international action, boycotts are actually not the most effective strategy to improve the situation.
• Exploring another perspective: It's true that labor conditions are terrible; workers, sometimes children, work long hours in dangerous factories for low pay.
• Exploring another perspective: Admittedly, many human rights advocates have called for boycotts.
• Exploring another perspective: Granted, boycotts have sometimes been an effective tool for reducing worker exploitation in other industries.

As you research and draft your paper, ask yourself—and your sources—these questions:

• Who? Are they credible sources?
• Why? Is there anything valid about their position? Is it based on values that you (and probably your reader) reject?
• What evidence do they use? Is it solid? Does it actually support their position?
• Is their position logical? Did they use any logical fallacies?
• Is there any factual evidence that seems to contradict my idea?
• What is a problem or concern with my idea? What are some drawbacks?
• What are the limits to my idea?
• What is an exception to my idea?
• What are some possible bad consequences that could result from my idea or plan?
• Why will my idea or plan be hard to do?
• If my idea or plan is so great, why isn't everyone already doing it?

How do multiple perspectives make an argument stronger?

Wait—why would you want to talk about the positions of people who think you're wrong? Wouldn't that weaken your argument?

Actually, no. Carefully explaining the other sides of the topic builds both ethos and logos. Imagine your reader reading your paper, taking in your reasons for why your thesis is true, and saying to themselves, "But what about this problem?" or "I heard that was a bad idea because..." You are communicating to your reader: "See? In case you don't believe me, I already thought about the other sides. Here's what my opponents say, and here's why I'm still right!"

Where do multiple perspectives go in a paper?

In journalistic articles like "‘ Plastic-free ’ Fashion is Not as Clean or Green as it Seems," writers often jump back and forth between perspectives throughout the text. A customary U.S. college argumentative essay typically includes one or more separate body paragraphs dedicated to explaining and responding to perspectives besides your own. Depending on the logic of your ideas, the order of your body paragraphs might follow one of these patterns:

• other perspectives come first, before your regular body paragraphs, to take on readers' possible doubts and objections and get them out of the way before explaining more about your reasons.
• other perspectives come last, after you have made your main case and before your conclusion.
• other perspectives go before or after the particular regular body paragraph they relate to.

Your introduction should also touch on the existence of these other perspectives, and your thesis statement may also directly address them, but you do not need to list every specific perspective in the introduction.

What goes in this special kind of body paragraph?

You start these paragraphs by stating another perspective. Then you explain that idea with specific detail (and often text evidence). Then you respond to that idea in a way that strengthens your overall argument. You may respond to the other positions with one of these two strategies, or a combination of both:

• counterargument : the other position is wrong (this is also called refutation)
• concession : the other position is a little bit true, but overall I'm still right

The key to keeping it all clear is to use connecting words to show which side you are focusing on and when you are changing sides.

Table 5.8.1 provides ideas and possible language to write a paragraph naming, explaining, and responding to other perspectives:

The models in Figure 5.8.2 are expressing two perspectives with their T-shirt slogans.

Concession/counterargument in action

Let's look at an example of a concession/counterargument paragraph in a student essay:

Here is a concession/counterargument paragraph from the student essay. The overall thesis of the whole essay is this:

Although some defend the fast fashion industry’s aesthetic and economic contributions, it has devastating impacts on labor rights and the environment, and needs serious regulations by all nations to stop the damage.

Read the paragraph and look for the following elements:

• What other position do they explain and then fight back against?
• Where are the places where the writer shifts perspectives?

Which parts are counterarguments, and which are concessions?

          Despite the clear injustices of garment production, some argue that the fashion industry provides work to people with few better choices in developing countries. According to reporter Stephanie Vatz, companies began outsourcing clothing manufacturing jobs in the 1970s, and by 2013, only two percent of clothing was made in the U.S. The same lack of labor protections that allows terrible working conditions in developing countries also guarantees low labor costs that motivate U.S. companies to relocate their factory sources. Benjamin Powell, the director of the Free Market Institute, justifies sweatshop labor, insisting that this model is "part of the process that raises living standards and leads to better working conditions and development over time (qtd. in Ozdamar-Ertekin 3). This argument is compelling from a distance, but even if it may be true to some degree when we look at the history of economic development, it disregards the humanity of the garment workers. These people continue to work long hours in brutal conditions, generating huge profits for the factory and retail owners. Saying that their lives could be even worse without this exploitation is actually just an excuse for greed.

For suggested answers, see 5.12: Analyzing Arguments Answer Key

Licenses and attributions

Authored by Gabriel Winer, Berkeley City College. License: CC BY NC.

Student essay paragraph from "Deadly Fashion" authored by Maroua Abdelghani and Ruri Tamimoto. License: CC BY NC

CC Licensed Content: Previously Published

"‘ Plastic-free ’ Fashion is Not as Clean or Green as it Seems" is republished from The Conversation , licensed under CC-BY-ND .

Definition of Concession Concession is a literary device used in argumentative writing, where one recognizes a point made through one’s opponent. It allows for one-of-a-kind evaluations and approaches closer to an issue, indicating an knowledge of what reasons the actual debate or controversy. It demonstrates that the writer is a mature thinker, and has taken into consideration the problem from all angles. Concession writing fashion also shows that the writer is a logical and fair-minded person, capable to understand that each argument has numerous facets to consider before it's miles presented. This kind of writing may be taken into consideration sturdy because it finds commonplace floor between the author and his opponent. Concession Examples Example #1: “Dad, I understand taking a experience to another united states with my pals may additionally be highly-priced and unsafe, however I actually have studied so difficult the past 12 months and I think I deserve a vacation. You already know how accountable I were all my life; I don’t suppose there can be any problem.” The above announcement is an instance of concession writing. It demonstrates the negative aspects of journeying as a young institution of boys, but argues against this with the truth that this unique boy has continually been a responsible man or woman and isn't always likely to get into trouble. Example #2: “I agree that many college students act and lie about being sick, in order that they can keep away from college for whatever reason. However, maximum students who do not come to school are definitely ill. Being sick, they need to be focusing on getting better, now not traumatic about college and grades just because a few students take gain of the absentee policy.” This statement also indicates the concession shape of writing in which the writer consents that some college students do lie approximately being ill, and that the writer is ready to recognize this issue. At the identical time, the author argues as to why college students who are definitely sick suffer due to those irresponsible college students. Example #3: “An individual does have his own proper to freedom, but medical proof proves that second-hand smoke is harmful. Nobody has the proper to damage the fitness of some other, and smoking does simply that.” Using concession, the writer has noted that everybody has freedom rights, however argues about the reality that no one has the right to harm any other individual’s fitness, irrespective of what the case is. Example #4: “It is authentic that troubles may also occasionally end up polarized and debated heatedly. Certainly, there may be a want for topics of public challenge to be discussed rationally. But that does not suggest that such concerns need to now not be expressed and investigated. After all, improper interference with educational freedom was located to have taken place. And the allegations raised by docs are ones which deserve similarly inquiry.” The above assertion demonstrates the concession writing method, in which the writer concurs that debating on problems can change into a heated argument, however that doesn't mean the issues should forestall being mentioned and investigated. Using concession, the writer has considered the extraordinary viewpoints of the issue, and then stated his argument. Example #5: Politics and the English Language (By George Orwell) “I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this will argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we can not have an impact on its development by using any direct tinkering with phrases or constructions. So a long way as the overall tone or spirit of language goes, this may be genuine, however it is not proper in detail.” This is every other example of concession writing showing that the author is a fair man or woman who has concept about the difficulty before giving his opinion. The creator consents with the fact that we can't do anything to develop the language. However it isn't true if we cross into details, Orwell says, because writers impact it too. Function of Concession Concession writing acknowledges that there are numerous specific views to a story. This kind of writing allows for unique critiques which can or might be made closer to an issue. It also shows that each one factors, positive as well as negative, were taken into consideration earlier than an issue is placed forward. Presenting the other side and then arguing towards it with valid factors could make it a totally sturdy piece of writing. Acknowledging the alternative aspect demonstrates recognize for the other opinion. The concession writing approach is likewise recognised used as a way of persuasion and reasoning.

• Alliteration
• Anachronism
• Antimetabole
• Aposiopesis
• Characterization
• Colloquialism
• Connotation
• Deus Ex Machina
• Didacticism
• Doppelganger
• Double Entendre
• Flash Forward
• Foreshadowing
• Internal Rhyme
• Juxtaposition
• Non Sequitur
• Onomatopoeia
• Parallelism
• Pathetic Fallacy
• Personification
• Poetic Justice
• Point of View
• Portmanteau
• Protagonist
• Red Herring
• Superlative
• Synesthesia
• Tragicomedy
• Tragic Flaw
• Verisimilitude

Please log in to save materials. Log in

• Concessions
• Counterarguments
• ESL Writing

The Argumentative Essay: The Language of Concession and Counterargument

Explanations and exercises about the use of counterarguments and concessions in argumentative essays.

The Argumentative Essay:  The Language of Concession and Counterargument

We have already analyzed the structure of an argumentative essays (also known as a persuasive essay), and have read samples of this kind of essay.  In this session we will review the purpose and structure of an argumentative essay, and will focus on practicing the grammar of sentences that present our argument while acknowledging that there is an opposing view point. In other words, we will focus on the grammar of concession and counterargument.

Purpose and structure of an argumentative essay

Take a few minutes to refresh your knowledge about the purpose and structure of argumentative / persuasive essays. 

The Purpose of Persuasive Writing

The purpose of persuasion in writing is to convince, motivate, or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion. The act of trying to persuade automatically implies more than one opinion on the subject can be argued.

The idea of an argument often conjures up images of two people yelling and screaming in anger. In writing, however, an argument is very different. An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue in writing is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way. Written arguments often fail when they employ ranting rather than reasoning.

Most of us feel inclined to try to win the arguments we engage in. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your opinion as a valid one, not simply the right one.

The Structure of a Persuasive Essay

The following five features make up the structure of a persuasive essay:

• Introduction and thesis
• Opposing and qualifying ideas
• Strong evidence in support of claim
• Style and tone of language
• A compelling conclusion                                                                                                            

Creating an Introduction and a thesis

The persuasive essay begins with an engaging introduction that presents the general topic. The thesis typically appears somewhere in the introduction and states the writer’s point of view.

Avoid forming a thesis based on a negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a positive case. That is, the thesis statement should focus on how the hourly minimum wage is low or insufficient.

Acknowledging Opposing Ideas and Limits to Your Argument

Because an argument implies differing points of view on the subject, you must be sure to acknowledge those opposing ideas. Avoiding ideas that conflict with your own gives the reader the impression that you may be uncertain, fearful, or unaware of opposing ideas. Thus it is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.

Try to address opposing arguments earlier rather than later in your essay. Rhetorically speaking, ordering your positive arguments last allows you to better address ideas that conflict with your own, so you can spend the rest of the essay countering those arguments. This way, you leave your reader thinking about your argument rather than someone else’s. You have the last word.

Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.

It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish. In effect, you are conceding early on that your argument is not the ultimate authority on a given topic. Such humility can go a long way toward earning credibility and trust with an audience. Audience members will know from the beginning that you are a reasonable writer, and audience members will trust your argument as a result. For example, in the following concessionary statement, the writer advocates for stricter gun control laws, but she admits it will not solve all of our problems with crime:

Although tougher gun control laws are a powerful first step in decreasing violence in our streets, such legislation alone cannot end these problems since guns are not the only problem we face.

Such a concession will be welcome by those who might disagree with this writer’s argument in the first place. To effectively persuade their readers, writers need to be modest in their goals and humble in their approach to get readers to listen to the ideas.

Text above adapted from: Writing for Success – Open Textbook (umn.edu)    Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Argument, Concession/Acknowledgment and Refutation

We have already seen that as a writer of an argumentative essay, you do not just want to present your arguments for or against a certain issue. You need to convince or persuade your readers that your opinion is the valid one. You convince readers by presenting your points of view, by presenting points of view that oppose yours, and by showing why the points of view different from yours are not as valid as yours.  These three elements of an argumentative essay are known as argument (your point of view), concession/acknowledgement/counterargument (admission that there is an opposing point of view to yours) and refutation (showing why the counterargument is not valid). Acknowledging points of view different from yours and refuting them makes your own argument stronger. It shows that you have thought about all the sides of the issue instead of thinking only about your own views.

Identifying argument, counterargument, concession and refutation

We will now look at sentences from paragraphs which are part of an argumentative essay and identify these parts. Read the four sentences in each group and decide if each sentence is the argument, the counterargument, the acknowledgement / concession or the refutation. Circle your choice.

Schools need to replace paper books with e-books.

argument                counterargument       acknowledgement      refutation

Others believe students will get bad eyesight if they read computer screens instead of paper books.

There is some truth to this statement.

However, e-books are much cheaper than paper books.

The best way to learn a foreign language is to visit a foreign country.

Some think watching movies in the foreign language is the best way to learn a language.

Even though people will learn some of the foreign language this way,

it cannot be better than actually living in the country and speaking with the people every day.

Exercise above adapted from: More Practice Recognizing Counterarguments, Acknowledgements, and Refutations. Clyde Hindman.  Canvas Commons. Public domain.

More Practice Recognizing Counterarguments, Acknowledgements, and Refutations | Canvas Commons (instructure.com)

Sentence structure: Argument and Concession 

Read the following sentences about the issue of cell phone use in college classrooms. Notice the connectors used between the independent and the dependent clauses.

Although cell phones are convenient, they isolate people.

    dependent clause                                              independent clause

 Cell phones isolate people, even though they are convenient.

                independent clause                                      dependent clause

In the sentences above, the argument is “cell phones isolate people”.  The counterargument is “cell phones are convenient” and the acknowledgment/concession is expressed by the use of although / even though to make the concession of the opposing argument. 

In addition, and most importantly, notice the following:

Which clause contains the writer’s argument? Which clause contains the concession?

The writer’s position is contained in the independent clause and the concession is contained in the dependent clause. This helps the writer to highlight their argument by putting it in the clause that stands on its own and leaving the dependent clause for the concession.

Notice that it doesn’t matter if the independent clause is at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.  In both cases, the argument is “cell phones isolate people.”

Notice the difference between these two sentences:

Cell phones are convenient, even though they isolate people.

     independent clause                   dependent clause

Cell phones isolate people, even though they are convenient.

          independent clause                   dependent clause

This pair of sentences shows how the structure of the sentence reflects the point of view of the writer. The argument in the first sentence is that cell phones are convenient. The writer feels this is the important aspect, and thus places it in the independent clause. In the dependent clause, the writer concedes that cell phones isolate people. In contrast, in the second sentence the argument is that cell phones isolate people. The writer feels this is the important aspect and therefore puts this idea in the independent clause. The writer of this sentence concedes that cell phones are convenient, and this concession appears in the dependent clause.

Read the following pairs of sentences and say which sentence in the pair has a positive attitude towards technology in our lives.

                                                             A

• Although technology has brought unexpected problems to society, it has become an instrument of progress.
• Technology has brought unexpected problems to society, even though it has become an instrument of progress.

                                                                  B

• Technology is an instrument of social change, even though there are affordability issues.
• There are affordability issues with technology, even though it is it is an instrument of social change.

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Maria Antonini de Pino – Evergreen Valley College, San Jose, California, USA

LIST OF SOURCES (in order of appearance)

• Text adapted from: Writing for Success – Open Textbook (umn.edu)

         Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

• Exercise adapted from: More Practice Recognizing Counterarguments, Acknowledgements, and Refutations. Clyde Hindman.  Canvas Commons. Public domain.

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

• tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
• is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
• directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
• makes a claim that others might dispute.
• is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

• Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to  be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

• Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

• Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

• Do I answer the question? Yes!
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

21 Argument, Counterargument, & Refutation

In academic writing, we often use an Argument essay structure. Argument essays have these familiar components, just like other types of essays:

• Introduction
• Body Paragraphs

But Argument essays also contain these particular elements:

• Debatable thesis statement in the Introduction
• Argument – paragraphs which show support for the author’s thesis (for example: reasons, evidence, data, statistics)
• Counterargument – at least one paragraph which explains the opposite point of view
• Concession – a sentence or two acknowledging that there could be some truth to the Counterargument
• Refutation (also called Rebuttal) – sentences which explain why the Counterargument is not as strong as the original Argument

Consult  Introductions & Titles for more on writing debatable thesis statements and  Paragraphs ~ Developing Support for more about developing your Argument.

Imagine that you are writing about vaping. After reading several articles and talking with friends about vaping, you decide that you are strongly opposed to it.

Which working thesis statement would be better?

• Vaping should be illegal because it can lead to serious health problems.

Many students do not like vaping.

Because the first option provides a debatable position, it is a better starting point for an Argument essay.

Next, you would need to draft several paragraphs to explain your position. These paragraphs could include facts that you learned in your research, such as statistics about vapers’ health problems, the cost of vaping, its effects on youth, its harmful effects on people nearby, and so on, as an appeal to logos . If you have a personal story about the effects of vaping, you might include that as well, either in a Body Paragraph or in your Introduction, as an appeal to pathos .

A strong Argument essay would not be complete with only your reasons in support of your position. You should also include a Counterargument, which will show your readers that you have carefully researched and considered both sides of your topic. This shows that you are taking a measured, scholarly approach to the topic – not an overly-emotional approach, or an approach which considers only one side. This helps to establish your ethos as the author. It shows your readers that you are thinking clearly and deeply about the topic, and your Concession (“this may be true”) acknowledges that you understand other opinions are possible.

Here are some ways to introduce a Counterargument:

• Some people believe that vaping is not as harmful as smoking cigarettes.
• Critics argue that vaping is safer than conventional cigarettes.
• On the other hand, one study has shown that vaping can help people quit smoking cigarettes.

Your paragraph would then go on to explain more about this position; you would give evidence here from your research about the point of view that opposes your own opinion.

Here are some ways to begin a Concession and Refutation:

• While this may be true for some adults, the risks of vaping for adolescents outweigh its benefits.
• Although these critics may have been correct before, new evidence shows that vaping is, in some cases, even more harmful than smoking.
• This may have been accurate for adults wishing to quit smoking; however, there are other methods available to help people stop using cigarettes.

Your paragraph would then continue your Refutation by explaining more reasons why the Counterargument is weak. This also serves to explain why your original Argument is strong. This is a good opportunity to prove to your readers that your original Argument is the most worthy, and to persuade them to agree with you.

Activity ~ Practice with Counterarguments, Concessions, and Refutations

A. Examine the following thesis statements with a partner. Is each one debatable?

B. Write  your own Counterargument, Concession, and Refutation for each thesis statement.

Thesis Statements:

• Online classes are a better option than face-to-face classes for college students who have full-time jobs.
• Students who engage in cyberbullying should be expelled from school.
• Unvaccinated children pose risks to those around them.
• Governments should be allowed to regulate internet access within their countries.

Is this chapter:

…too easy, or you would like more detail? Read “ Further Your Understanding: Refutation and Rebuttal ” from Lumen’s Writing Skills Lab.

Note: links open in new tabs.

reasoning, logic

emotion, feeling, beliefs

moral character, credibility, trust, authority

goes against; believes the opposite of something

ENGLISH 087: Academic Advanced Writing Copyright © 2020 by Nancy Hutchison is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Document-Based Question (DBQ)

What is a dbq, how to read the documents:, written documents, how to answer the prompt:, compare & contrast, cause & effect, change & continuity over time, how to earn all 7 points:.

Contextualization

Analysis & Sourcing

How to start writing the dbq, how to write a dbq:.

Attached below is a worksheet with an outline organizer for your DBQ. When practicing for your DBQ, feel free to download & print this to use:

7 documents

You are given 7 documents, and you are given a prompt, similar to an LEQ prompt. You need to write an essay, responding to the prompt, using evidence from the documents. ​You have 60 minutes in total, but of those 15 minutes are recommended for reading. The sections below describe the types of documents, types of prompts, and the rubric and how to earn each point. 

You are given 7 documents. The different types are described below:

Excerpt / Written Document

Graphic, Diagram, Map, Cartoon

General Tips

Look at the sourcing before you read each doc to get an idea of what the doc might say

Write a quick summary (~3 bullet points) to summarize the content of each doc

Write a note of how each doc fits in with the prompt

Does it support or refute your thesis?

Which side of the prompt does it cover?

Which aspect (which body paragraph) of your prompt / thesis does it cover?

Any document with written paragraphs

Newspaper, letter, speech, historian's interpretation, constitution, religious text, etc.​

Special tips:

Before you read, read the sourcing & title and try to get an idea of what the doc might say

Take your time to understand the content of the doc; no need to rush​​

Write a few notes summarizing the doc

Figure out how the doc relates to the prompt

Does it argue one side or another?

Does it provide evidence for a specific geographical region?

Does it refute your thesis?

Which sub-category of the prompt does it answer?

Any document that is a photo

Any photo that a photographer might take, or an artist's depiction of a historical event

NOT a diagram, map, or something manmade or designed by historians

Read the sourcing & title to try to figure out what the photo might depict

Look at all aspects of the photo, get an idea of what it depicts

Does it represent a historical development?​

Does it represent an artistic movement?

Look for all signs of bias in the photo

Is it depicting a specific point of view?

Does it portray a certain culture as superior?

Does it portray a certain culture as inferior?​

Does it represent a military victory?​​​

This would mean one side is better than the other​

Does it portray something as bigger or exaggerated?

Means that the exaggerated thing is depicted as superior

Does it portray something as smaller?

Means that the thing that's depicted smaller is portrayed as inferior

Based on the point of view (bias) and the content, figure out how it relates to the prompt

Does it support / refute your thesis?

What aspect of the prompt does it answer?​

Any document that is a man-made photo

Graphic, diagram, political cartoon, map, etc.

Before you read, read the sourcing & title and try to get an idea of what the doc might depict

Look at the doc and try to figure out what it represents, or what topic it depicts

Think about the bias or point of view of the doc:

Does it represent the views of one side or another?

Is it depicting one side as exaggerated or superior to another?

Cartoons are generally biased

If it's a map, what is it representing?

Is it representing the map of industrial factories, trade routes, westward expansion, deciphered wind patterns, etc.?​

Once you figure this out, understand the historical context of the map

If it's a graphic or a diagram, what information does it detail?

If it's a population growth map, what allowed for population growth?​

Think of what the diagram depicts, and what allowed for that, and what's the historical context of that historical development?

Involves comparing & contrasting 2 different things

Most important thing is the argument: Not what the differences/similarities were, but HOW THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT

How to use the documents:

Some docs might explain the features of one of the comparand (the thing you compare), other docs may explain the other comparand

Some docs might cover both comparands

Figure out what the docs are saying for each comparand, and write your thesis based on that

What are they saying are similar & different about the 2?​

Involves examining what a certain historical development, and what were its causes & effects

What's more important is examining the significance of the causes, or how one cause/effect was more important than other causes/effects

Generally, 2 causes and 1 or 2 effects

Some docs might explain the event

Some docs might explain the causes, others might explain the effects

Draft a thesis based on the info about the causes & effects mentioned in the docs

Try to mention which causes were more significant than other causes

Involves examining what changed & what remained the same as a result of one event​

Some docs might explain the catalyst (the event that caused the changes/continuities) you write about

Some docs might describe the changes

Some docs might describe the continuities

Draft a thesis based on what the docs say about the changes & continuities

How to Earn all 7  Points:

Contextualization (1 point).

Examine the historical context of the story

Kind of like a "recap" or a "flashback"

Like at the beginning of a TV show, it shows a recap of the previous episode

How to write one

Always include the time period & possibly the location​

"In Europe in the period 1450 - 1750, ..."

Provide a brief 3-5 sentence recap of how the world arrived at the situation you are writing about in your essay

The contextualization should finish with how the world arrived at the historical development you write about in your thesis, so that there is a smooth transition from contextualization to the thesis

Sample Contextualizations

Topic: Related to the industrial revolution​

Before the 1750s, people were performing manual labor, making items by hand, which was very inefficient. From 1750-1900, Europe and the rest of the world underwent an economic transformation called the Industrial Revolution. Starting in Britain due to its abundance of raw materials & strong financial support, industrial capitalists built factories powered by waterwheels or coal that artificially produced goods such as textiles, eliminating the need to make them by hand. This brought a lot more people from the countryside to the cities, where they worked in factories for low wages. From Britain, the industrial revolution spread throughout Europe as well as to US, Egypt, Russia, and Japan. [Insert Thesis Here]

Topic: Related to imperialism​

In the period 1750-1900, Europe underwent an economic transformation known as the industrial revolution, where people would use artificial power to cheaply & efficiently manufacture goods in commercial factories in the cities, rather than making goods by hand at home. In order for these factories to produce goods, they needed raw materials, which is why they had to look to other nations like those in Africa and Asia to supply raw materials to them. Thi​s led to European imperialism, a development where Europeans started colonizing other nations throughout the world, especially in Africa and Asia, to establish export-oriented economies to get raw materials to supply to their factories. [Insert Thesis Here]

Thesis (1 point)

This is your argument

Must be something that can be opposed​

Someone else has to be able to write an essay whose thesis is the opposite of yours

Must contain an argument, and generally 2-3 examples (topics for body paragraphs)

Better to have a concession

Useful for complexity point

Format of Thesis & Examples

Color Key: 

Concession / Counterargument*

Similarities / Continuities / Causes

Difference for Comparand 1 / Changes / Effects

Differences for Comparand 2

*Concession is always optional. Described in the analysis section, it can be used to get the extra complexity point

Prompt: Compare & Contrast

Although some may believe [counterargument]* , w hile [comparand 1] and [comparand 2] both [insert similarities] , [comparand 1] was [insert difference for comparand 1], and [comparand 2] was [insert difference for comparand 2], which [is why / allowed for] [insert argument]. 

Although the Delhi Sultanate had very strict religious authority, while the Delhi Sultanate and the Chola Kingdom both used religion to maintain stability , the Delhi Sultanate was attempting to impose Islam on a Hindu-majority population , and the Chola Kingdom imposed Hindu on a Hindu population , which allowed for the Chola Kingdom to be more successful than the Delhi Sultanate. 

Prompt: Change & Continuity over Time

Although some may believe [counterargument]* , as a result of [catalyst],  while [continuity] stayed the same , [change] changed,   which [is why / allowed for] [insert argument]. 

Although some may believe the Catholic church actually became more powerful, as a result of the Protestant Reformation, while women still maintained strictly subordinate roles , there were more religious wars, and more monarchs were able to consolidate more power for themselves , which caused the Catholic church to decline in power.  

Prompt: Cause & Effect

Although some may believe [counterargument]* are the most important causes of [event] ,  [causes] were the main causes** , which caused [effects].  

Although some may believe that the desire to spread Christianity was the main cause of European imperialism , the desire to get raw materials and the need for more markets were the main causes , which led to a more integrated global economy and the development of technological infrastructure in the colonies. 

**Here, the argument is that the causes you described in the blue section are more important than the causes in the yellow section. There is no need for an extra argument at the end

Evidence (3 points)

This is where you put examples / pieces of evidence to support your thesis​

To get 1 point : Use evidence from 3 of the docs

To get 2 points : Use evidence from 6 of the docs, and put an extra analysis to connect it to the thesis

It's always better to use all 7 docs in case you use one incorrectly

To get 3 points : Use an extra piece of evidence (from your own knowledge, not from the docs), and put an extra analysis to connect it to the thesis

Examples of How to Write your Evidence

How to earn the first point:

To earn the 1st point, you need to describe / state evidence from 3 docs without connecting it to the thesis

According to document 3, the Chola Empire used Hinduism as the state religion. 

According to document 7, there were more factories in Britain than in France. 

How to earn the second point:

To earn the 2nd point, you need evidence from 6* docs, and you also need to connect it to the thesis

According to document 3, the Chola Empire used Hinduism as the state religion. Because the population was also mostly Hindu, the Chola Empire was able to maintain stability by using a common belief in Hinduism to stabilize its rule. 

According to document 7, there were more factories in Britain than in France. Thus, Britain had a larger industrial output than France, which is why it was able to manufacture more weapons during World War 1 and why France relied on Britain for support. 

*Always use all 7 docs to in case you use one doc incorrectly

How to earn the third point:

To earn the third point, you need to include one piece of evidence that is not in the documents and is from your own knowledge. 

Think of what evidence or what viewpoint is missing

If it's a compare & contrast: is there any other similarity or difference? Do you have any other evidence to support the topics of your thesis?

If it's a change & continuity over time: Is there any other evidence to support one of your changes or continuities?

If it's a cause & effect: Is there any other evidence or historical content that can support your causes or effects?

Analysis (2 points)

This is the hardest part

For 1 point, you need to explain how the source of 3 documents affects either your argument or what the document has to say

There are 4 parts of sourcing, and you ONLY NEED TO CHOOSE ONE

Explained in more detail below​

For the 2nd point, you need to use complex analysis in your argument

This is the most confusing

The easiest way is to weave a counterargument through your essay, which the concession already sets you up for

The best way is to not think about it too much and just put a bit more complex arguments into your essay rather than sticking to a strict format

Historical Context

Point of View

You need to choose ONE of the above and follow the instructions below. Each of the sections below has information about each aspect of sourcing. 

You need to do this for THREE different sources to earn full points (we recommend you do 4 in case one is wrong)

Historical Context:

Explain how the historical context of any document affects what the document argues

This document was written after WW1 when everyone was feeling depressed and economically poor, which explains why the priest is talking about a revival of religion and cheerful spirits. 

This document was written in a time after the Protestant Reformation when there were a lot of religious wars, which is why the document argues that Lutheranism is better than Calvinism. 

Explain how the intended audience of any document affects what the document argues

This document was written for the Armenians of the Ottoman empire, a Christian minority that was believed to conspire with the Allies, which is why the document is very aggressive toward them in asserting Ottoman dominance. 

This speech was written to the American people to gain support for the Treaty of Versailles, which is why it intends to boost nationalist sentiment and promote American power. 

Explain how the purpose of any document affects what the document argues

This speech was written by the Republic party with the purpose of convincing its audience to vote for them, which is why it argues that Free Silver, a democratic idea, is bad. 

This speech was written by John of Montecorvino, the Archbishop of Khanbaliq who sought to convert the Mongol boys to Christianity, which is why he emphasizes how Christianity allows one to achieve salvation. 

Point of View:

Explain how the point of view of any document affects what the document argues

This speech was written from the point of view of an Indian cotton farmer, which is why he writes that the British completely destroyed the Indian handmade textile industry. 

This document was written from the point of view of Grover Cleveland, an anti-imperialist president, which is why he writes about the harms of annexing Hawaii. 

The Complexity Point

The final point is the complexity point. This is given if you have a complex argument, and it is hard to achieve. The best way to think about this is do more than the prompt asks, and add a bit of extra analysis into the essay. 

The easiest way to do this is weave a counterargument through the essay. In our thesis samples above, we already set you up for this with our concession clause. 

How to Start Writing the DBQ:

First step is to outline your essay. Follow the steps below:

Read through each document, write a brief summary, and figure out how it relates to the prompt (which side/aspect does it argue?)​

Write your thesis. Write each aspect of the thesis (concession/counterargument, evidence 1, evidence 2, argument), and combine them

Write the outline for your body paragraphs. Write the topic for each body paragraph, and which docs you'll use in each. Also, denote where you'll use your outside evidence

Write an outline for your sourcing. Choose 4 different documents, and write the sourcing sentence following the guidelines in the sourcing section above

Start writing. Good luck!

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write an excellent thesis conclusion [with examples]

Restate the thesis

Review or reiterate key points of your work, explain why your work is relevant, a take-away for the reader, more resources on writing thesis conclusions, frequently asked questions about writing an excellent thesis conclusion, related articles.

At this point in your writing, you have most likely finished your introduction and the body of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper . While this is a reason to celebrate, you should not underestimate the importance of your conclusion. The conclusion is the last thing that your reader will see, so it should be memorable.

A good conclusion will review the key points of the thesis and explain to the reader why the information is relevant, applicable, or related to the world as a whole. Make sure to dedicate enough of your writing time to the conclusion and do not put it off until the very last minute.

This article provides an effective technique for writing a conclusion adapted from Erika Eby’s The College Student's Guide to Writing a Good Research Paper: 101 Easy Tips & Tricks to Make Your Work Stand Out .

While the thesis introduction starts out with broad statements about the topic, and then narrows it down to the thesis statement , a thesis conclusion does the same in the opposite order.

• Restate the thesis.
• Review or reiterate key points of your work.
• Explain why your work is relevant.
• Include a core take-away message for the reader.

Tip: Don’t just copy and paste your thesis into your conclusion. Restate it in different words.

The best way to start a conclusion is simply by restating the thesis statement. That does not mean just copying and pasting it from the introduction, but putting it into different words.

You will need to change the structure and wording of it to avoid sounding repetitive. Also, be firm in your conclusion just as you were in the introduction. Try to avoid sounding apologetic by using phrases like "This paper has tried to show..."

The conclusion should address all the same parts as the thesis while making it clear that the reader has reached the end. You are telling the reader that your research is finished and what your findings are.

I have argued throughout this work that the point of critical mass for biopolitical immunity occurred during the Romantic period because of that era's unique combination of post-revolutionary politics and innovations in smallpox prevention. In particular, I demonstrated that the French Revolution and the discovery of vaccination in the 1790s triggered a reconsideration of the relationship between bodies and the state.

Tip: Try to reiterate points from your introduction in your thesis conclusion.

The next step is to review the main points of the thesis as a whole. Look back at the body of of your project and make a note of the key ideas. You can reword these ideas the same way you reworded your thesis statement and then incorporate that into the conclusion.

You can also repeat striking quotations or statistics, but do not use more than two. As the conclusion represents your own closing thoughts on the topic , it should mainly consist of your own words.

In addition, conclusions can contain recommendations to the reader or relevant questions that further the thesis. You should ask yourself:

• What you would ideally like to see your readers do in reaction to your paper?
• Do you want them to take a certain action or investigate further?
• Is there a bigger issue that your paper wants to draw attention to?

Also, try to reference your introduction in your conclusion. You have already taken a first step by restating your thesis. Now, check whether there are other key words, phrases or ideas that are mentioned in your introduction that fit into your conclusion. Connecting the introduction to the conclusion in this way will help readers feel satisfied.

I explored how Mary Wollstonecraft, in both her fiction and political writings, envisions an ideal medico-political state, and how other writers like William Wordsworth and Mary Shelley increasingly imagined the body politic literally, as an incorporated political collective made up of bodies whose immunity to political and medical ills was essential to a healthy state.

Tip: Make sure to explain why your thesis is relevant to your field of research.

Although you can encourage readers to question their opinions and reflect on your topic, do not leave loose ends. You should provide a sense of resolution and make sure your conclusion wraps up your argument. Make sure you explain why your thesis is relevant to your field of research and how your research intervenes within, or substantially revises, existing scholarly debates.

This project challenged conventional ideas about the relationship among Romanticism, medicine, and politics by reading the unfolding of Romantic literature and biopolitical immunity as mutual, co-productive processes. In doing so, this thesis revises the ways in which biopolitics has been theorized by insisting on the inherent connections between Romantic literature and the forms of biopower that characterize early modernity.

Tip: If you began your thesis with an anecdote or historical example, you may want to return to that in your conclusion.

End your conclusion with something memorable, such as:

• a call to action
• a recommendation
• a gesture towards future research
• a brief explanation of how the problem or idea you covered remains relevant

Ultimately, you want readers to feel more informed, or ready to act, as they read your conclusion.

Yet, the Romantic period is only the beginning of modern thought on immunity and biopolitics. Victorian writers, doctors, and politicians upheld the Romantic idea that a "healthy state" was a literal condition that could be achieved by combining politics and medicine, but augmented that idea through legislation and widespread public health measures. While many nineteenth-century efforts to improve citizens' health were successful, the fight against disease ultimately changed course in the twentieth century as global immunological threats such as SARS occupied public consciousness. Indeed, as subsequent public health events make apparent, biopolitical immunity persists as a viable concept for thinking about the relationship between medicine and politics in modernity.

Need more advice? Read our 5 additional tips on how to write a good thesis conclusion.

The conclusion is the last thing that your reader will see, so it should be memorable. To write a great thesis conclusion you should:

The basic content of a conclusion is to review the main points from the paper. This part represents your own closing thoughts on the topic. It should mainly consist of the outcome of the research in your own words.

The length of the conclusion will depend on the length of the whole thesis. Usually, a conclusion should be around 5-7% of the overall word count.

End your conclusion with something memorable, such as a question, warning, or call to action. Depending on the topic, you can also end with a recommendation.

In Open Access: Theses and Dissertations you can find thousands of completed works. Take a look at any of the theses or dissertations for real-life examples of conclusions that were already approved.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Read the Federal Judges’ Ruling

A newly drawn congressional map in Louisiana was struck down by a panel of federal judges who found that the new boundaries, which form a second majority Black district in the state, amounted to an “impermissible racial gerrymander” that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 135 PageID #: 4891 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL CIVIL DOCKET NO. 3:24-CV-00122 DCJ-CES-RRS THREE-JUDGE COURT VERSUS NANCY LANDRY, in her official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State INJUNCTION AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Opinion of the Court by David C. Joseph and Robert R. Summerhays, District Judges. The present case involves a challenge to the current congressional redistricting map enacted in Louisiana on the grounds that one of the congressional districts created by the Louisiana State Legislature District 6 — is an impermissible racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This challenge reflects the tension between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The Voting Rights Act protects minority voters against dilution resulting from redistricting maps that “crack” or “pack” a large and "geographically compact" minority population. On the other hand, the Equal Protection Clause applies strict scrutiny to redistricting that is grounded predominately on race. The challenged Louisiana redistricting scheme originated in response to litigation brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a separate suit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, challenging Louisiana's prior redistricting scheme under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Page 1 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 135 PageID #: 4892 Robinson, et al v. Ardoin, No. 3:22-cv-211; consolidated with Galmon et al v. Ardoin, No. 3:22-cv-214 (M.D. La.) ("Robinson Docket”). There, the district court concluded that the Robinson plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Louisiana's prior redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In response, the Legislature adopted the present redistricting map (created by Senate Bill 8) ("SB8"), which established a second majority-Black congressional district to resolve the Robinson litigation. The plaintiffs here then filed the present case challenging this new congressional map on the grounds that the second majority- Black district created by the Legislature violates the Equal Protection Clause. This matter was tried before the three-judge panel from April 8-10, 2024. Having considered the testimony and evidence at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, we conclude that District 6 of SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the State is enjoined from using SB8 in any future elections. The Court's Opinion below constitutes its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court sets a status conference with all parties to discuss the appropriate remedy. A. I. PROCEDURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Hays Litigation "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Winston Churchill Following the 1990 census, the Louisiana State Legislature (the "Legislature") enacted Act 42 of 1992, which created a new congressional voting map. Prior to the Act 42 map, Louisiana had seven congressional districts, one of which included a majority-Black voting population. Act 42 created a second majority-Black district. Page 2 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 135 PageID #: 4893 The existing majority-Black district encircled New Orleans, and the other, new one, "[l]ike the fictional swordsman Zorro, when making his signature mark, slash[ed] a giant but somewhat shaky 'Z' across the state.” Hays v. State of La., 839 F. Supp. 1188, 1199 (W.D. La. 1993), vacated sub nom. Louisiana v. Hays, 512 U.S. 1230, 114 S. Ct. 2731, 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994) ("Hays I"). Several voters challenged the scheme. After a trial, a three-judge panel of the Western District of Louisiana concluded that Act 42's plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and accordingly enjoined the use of that plan in any future elections. Id. In 1993, while an appeal of the district court's findings in Hays I was pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Legislature repealed Act 42 and passed Act 1, creating a new map. Hays v. State of La., 862 F. Supp. 119, 125 (W.D. La. 1994), aff'd sub nom. St. Cyr v. Hays, 513 U.S. 1054, 115 S. Ct. 687, 130 L.Ed.2d 595 (1994), and vacated sub nom. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S. Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995) ("Hays II). The 1993 map, like the 1992 map, had two majority-African American districts. Id. One encircled New Orleans, while the other was long and narrow and slashed 250 miles in a southeasterly direction from Shreveport down to Baton Rouge. This district was described as resembling “an inkblot which has spread indiscriminately across the Louisiana map.” Id. Page 3 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 135 PageID #: 4894 5 LO 4 6 (Act 1) 7 3 1 2 PE22 (Map from Hays II). The Supreme Court vacated Hays I and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of the passage of Act 1. See Louisiana v. Hays, 512 U.S. 1230, 114 S. Ct. 2731, 129 L.Ed.2d 853 (1994). The panel of our colleagues making up that three-judge court determined that the Legislature had once again allowed race to predominant in the map's creation and declared Act 1 unconstitutional. Hays II at 121. The case was again appealed to the Supreme Court. Without addressing the merits of the case, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Act 1 as they did not reside in the challenged district. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S. Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). On remand, the three-judge panel permitted an amended complaint to address the standing issue. The court then reiterated its findings from Hays II that Act 1 Page 4 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 135 PageID #: 4895 constituted a racial gerrymander and was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. The court therefore found that Act 1 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and ordered the state to implement a redistricting plan drawn by the court. Hays v. Louisiana, 936 F. Supp. 360 (W.D. La. 1996) (“Hays III”). B. 2020 Census and Events Leading up to the Robinson Litigation Based on the 2020 Census, Louisiana's population stood at 4,657,757 with a voting-age population of 3,570,548. JE6; JE15. As a result, the state qualified for six congressional districts one less district than it had during the Hays litigation, but the same number it was allotted after the 2010 Census. JE15. Prior to the start of the legislative session on redistricting, members of the Legislature traveled across the state conducting public hearings, called “roadshows,” to give the public the opportunity to voice their views on the redistricting process. See JE-3; see also Tr., Vol. III, 513:14–514:17. The roadshows were “designed to share information about redistricting and solicit public comment and testimony.” Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F.Supp.3d 759, 767 (M.D. La. 2022), cert. granted before judgment, 142 S. Ct. 2892, 213 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2022), and cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 143 S. Ct. 2654, 216 L.Ed.2d 1233 (2023), and vacated and remanded, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023) ("Robinson Injunction Ruling"). The Louisiana Senate Governmental Affairs and House Governmental Affairs conducted ten hearings as part of the roadshow across the state. Tr., Vol. II, 476:18– 25; Tr., Vol. III, 513:18–514:7. These hearings allowed citizens to testify on their redistricting preferences. Id. Senator Royce Duplessis, who served as Vice Chair of Page 5 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 6 of 135 PageID #: 4896 the House and Governmental Affairs Committee at the time, attended the roadshows and testified that “the purpose of the road shows was to give the public the opportunity to share their thoughts and what they wanted to see in redistricting.” Tr., Vol. III, 514:8–17. Louisiana ultimately enacted a new congressional map, created by House Bill 1 ("HB1"), on March 31, 2022. JE1. As with Louisiana's prior congressional map, HB1 had one majority-Black district. Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards vetoed HB1, but the Legislature overrode that veto. Robinson Injunction Ruling at 767. 1 Act 5 (HB1) 1st ES (2022)- Congressional Districts 2022 Enacted Map (JE16). Page 6 of 60 EXHIBIT

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 7 of 135 PageID #: 4897 C. The Robinson Litigation On the same day that HB1 was enacted, a group of plaintiffs led by Press Robinson¹ (the “Robinson Plaintiffs"), and a second group of plaintiffs led by Edward Galmon, Sr.2 (the "Galmon Plaintiffs"), filed suit against the Louisiana Secretary of State in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Robinson Injunction Ruling at 768. The Middle District consolidated the Robinson and Galmon suits and allowed intervention by the President of the Louisiana State Senate, the Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and the Louisiana Attorney General. Id. at 768-69. The Robinson and Galmon Plaintiffs alleged that the congressional map created by HB1 diluted the votes of Black Louisianians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Robinson Injunction Ruling at 768. This dilution was purportedly accomplished through "packing' large numbers of Black voters into a single majority-Black congressional district...and 'cracking' the remaining Black voters among the other five districts...to ensure they [would be] unable to participate equally in the electoral process.” Id. at 768. Both sets of plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Secretary of State from using the HB1 map in the 2022 congressional elections, give the Legislature a deadline to enact a map that complied with the Voting Rights Act, and order the use 1 Press Robinson, Edgar Cage, Dorothy Nairne, Edwin Rene Soule, Alice Washington, Clee Earnest Lowe, Davante Lewis, Martha Davis, Ambrose Sims, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") Louisiana State Conference, and Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. 2 Edward Galmon, Sr., Ciara Hart, Norris Henderson, and Tramelle Howard. Page 7 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 8 of 135 PageID #: 4898 of a map proposed by the plaintiffs in the event the Legislature failed to enact a compliant map. Id. at 769. The Middle District held an evidentiary hearing in the Robinson matter, beginning May 9, 2022. Robinson Injunction Ruling at 769. On June 6, 2022, the court issued a preliminary injunction finding that the Robinson and Galmon Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their Section 2 vote dilution claims. Id. at 851-52. The Middle District further determined that a new compliant voting map could be drawn without disrupting the 2022 election. Id. at 856. Accordingly, the Middle District entered an order enjoining the Secretary of State from conducting elections using the HB1 map, ordered the Legislature to enact a new voting map that included a second majority-Black voting district by June 20, 2022, and stayed the state's nominating petition deadline until July 8, 2022. Robinson Injunction Ruling at 858. In the event the Legislature failed to enact a new map before the deadline, the Middle District set an evidentiary hearing for June 29, 2022, regarding which map should be used in its place. Robinson Docket, [Doc. 206]. On June 9, 2022, the Middle District denied a motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. Robinson v. Ardoin, No. CV 22-211-SDD-SDJ, 2022 WL 2092551 (M.D. La. June 9, 2022). While the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially stayed the injunction review on the same day, Robinson v. Ardoin, No. 22-30333, 2022 WL 2092862 (5th Cir. June 9, 2022), it vacated the stay a few days later. Robinson v. Ardoin, 37 F.4th 208, 232 (5th Cir. 2022). On June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States again stayed the Middle District's injunction. Ardoin v. Robinson, 142 S. Ct. 2892, 213 L.Ed.2d 1107 (2022). On June 26, 2023, Page 8 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 9 of 135 PageID #: 4899 after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alabama v Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 216 L.Ed.2d 60 (2023), the court vacated the stay in Robinson as improvidently granted, allowing review of the matter to continue before the Fifth Circuit. Ardoin v. Robinson, 143 S. Ct. 2654, 216 L.Ed.2d 1233 (2023). In response to the Supreme Court's action in vacating the stay, the Middle District reset the remedial evidentiary hearing to begin October 3, 2023. Robinson Docket, [Doc. 250]. The Louisiana Attorney General sought mandamus from the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the evidentiary hearing. In re Landry, 83 F.4th 300, 308 (5th Cir. 2023). On November 10, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision on the Secretary of State's appeal of the Middle District's preliminary injunction. Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023) ("Robinson Appeal Ruling"). Although noting that the Robinson Plaintiffs' arguments were “not without weaknesses," the Circuit Court found no clear error with the Middle District's factual findings, nor with its conclusion that the HB1 map likely violated Section 2, and held that the preliminary injunction was valid when it was issued. Robinson Appeal Ruling at 599. However, because the 2022 election had already occurred and because the Legislature had time to enact a new map without disrupting the 2024 election, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court's preliminary injunction was no longer necessary. Id. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction to give the Legislature the opportunity, if it desired, to enact a new redistricting plan before January 15, 2024. Id. at 601. The Fifth Circuit opinion did not provide any parameters or specific direction as to how the Legislature was to accomplish this task. Id. If no new re-districting plan was Page 9 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 10 of 135 PageID #: 4900 enacted before January 15, 2024, the Fifth Circuit directed the district court, “to conduct a trial and any other necessary proceedings to decide the validity of the HB1 map, and, if necessary, to adopt a different districting plan for the 2024 elections.” Id. The Middle District thereafter set a remedial evidentiary hearing for February 5, 2024. Prior to that date, and as detailed below, the Legislature enacted SB8, creating a new congressional districting map. Upon notice of SB8's enactment, the Middle District cancelled the remedial hearing. Robinson Docket, [Doc. 343]. D. Legislative Response Among the first actions of newly inaugurated Governor Jeff Landry was to call the 2024 First Extraordinary Session on Monday, January 8, 2024 (the "Special Session"). JE8. This call directed the Legislature to, among other things, “legislate relative to the redistricting of the Congressional districts of Louisiana.” Id. On the first day of the Special Session, Governor Landry addressed the joint chambers. After detailing his extensive efforts in Robinson to defend the congressional map enacted in 2022, he stated: "we have exhausted all legal remedies and we have labored with this issue for far too long." JE35 at 11. “[N] ow, once and for all," he continued, “I think it's time that we put this to bed. Let us make the necessary adjustments to heed the instructions of the court. Take the pen out of the hand of a non-elected judge and place it in your hands. In the hands of the people. It's really that simple. I would beg you, help me make this a reality in this special session, for this special purpose, on this special day.” Id. Page 10 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 11 of 135 PageID #: 4901 The product of the Special Session was SB8, which was passed on January 22, 2024. JE10. The Court has reviewed the entire legislative record, including the January 15 Joint Session, the January 15 House and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, the January 16 Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, the January 17 Senate floor debate, the January 17 House and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, the January 18 House floor hearing, the January 18 House and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, the January 19 House of Representatives floor debate, and the January 19 Senate floor debate. PE23-29. Numerous comments during the Special Session highlight the intent of the Legislature in passing SB8. Senator Glen Womack, the Senate sponsor of SB8, stated at the legislative session that redistricting must occur because of the litigation occurring in the Middle District of Louisiana. PE41, at 18. Specifically because of that litigation, Senator Womack opined that “we had to draw two majority minority districts." PE41, at 20. Later in the Special Session, Senator Womack, in addressing the odd shape of SB8's District 6 (shown below), admitted that creating two majority-Black districts is "the reason why District 2 is drawn around the Orleans Parish and why District 6 includes the Black population of East Baton Rouge Parish and travels up I-49 corridor to include Black population in Shreveport.” PE41, at 26. Senator Womack also professed: "we all know why we're here. We were ordered to draw a new black district, and that's what I've done." JE31, 121:21-22 Likewise, in the House of Representatives, Representative Beau Beaullieu was asked during his presentation of SB8 by Representative Beryl Amedee, “is this bill Page 11 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 12 of 135 PageID #: 4902 intended to create another Black district?" and Representative Beaullieu responded, . "yes, ma'am, and to comply with the judge's order." JE33, 9:3-8. Representative Josh Carlson stated, even in his support of SB8, that “the overarching argument that I've heard from nearly everyone over the last four days has been race first" and that "race seems to be, at least based on the conversations, the driving force” behind the redistricting plan. Id. at 97:18-19, 21-24. But, Representative Carlson acknowledged that racial integration made drawing a second majority-Black district difficult: - And so the reason why this is so difficult is because we are moving in the right direction. We don't have concentrated populations of of certain minorities or populations of white folks in certain areas. It is spread out throughout the state. Compared to Alabama, Alabama has 17 counties that are minority-majority, and they're all contiguous. Louisiana has seven parishes that are minority-majority and only three are contiguous. That's why this process is so difficult, but here we are without any other options to move forward. Id. at 98:2-12. Representative Rodney Lyons, Vice Chairman of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, stated that the "mission that we have here is that we have to create two majority-Black districts.” JE31, 75:24-76:1. Senator Jay Morris also remarked that “[i]t looks to me we primarily considered race." JE34, 7:2-3. Senator Gary Carter went on to express his support for SB8 and read a statement from Congressman Troy Carter on the Senate floor: My dear friends and colleagues, as I said on the steps of the capital, I will work with anyone who wants to create two majority-minority districts. I am not married to any one map. I have worked tirelessly to help create two majority-minority districts that perform. That's how I know that there may be better ways to create to craft both of these districts. There are multiple maps that haven't been reviewed at all. Page 12 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 13 of 135 PageID #: 4903 However, the Womack map creates two majority-minority districts, and therefore I am supportive of it. And I urge my former colleagues and friends to vote for it while trying to make both districts stronger with appropriate amendment. We do not want to jeopardize this rare opportunity to give African American voters the equal representation they rightly deserve. JE30, 16:10-25. Louisiana Attorney General Murrill also gave the legislators advice during the Special Session. She told them that the 2022 enacted map, HB1, was a defensible and lawful map. JE28, 36:24-37:1. She stated, “I am defending that map, and so you won't hear me say that I believe that that map violated the redistricting criteria,” Id. at 42:23, and “I am defending it now." Id. at 46:3-4. She further declared "I am defending what I believe to have been a defensible map.” Id. at 53:2. She also informed legislators that the Robinson litigation had not led to a fair or reliable result. Id. at 61:20-62:12, 62:24-63:3, 63:6-17. SB8 was the only congressional map to advance out of committee and through the legislative process. The map was passed on Friday, January 19, 2024, and signed by the Governor as Act 2 on January 22, 2024. JE10. SB8's second majority-minority district, District 6, stretches some 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest corner of the state to Baton Rouge in southeast Louisiana, slicing through metropolitan areas to scoop up pockets of predominantly Black populations from Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge. The figure below, which shows the map enacted by SB8, demonstrates the highly irregular shape of Congressional District 6. Page 13 of 60

EXHIBIT JE14 Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 14 of 135 PageID #: 4904 1 दार M 1 1 PE14. When converted to a black and white map and placed next to the Hays II map, the similarities of the two maps become obvious. 4 (ACK 1) 5 7 Black and White Version of PE14 (left) and PE22 (right). Page 14 of 60 3

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 15 of 135 PageID #: 4905 E. The Parties and Their Claims The Plaintiffs, Philip Callais, Lloyd Price, Bruce Odell, Elizabeth Ersoff, Albert Caissie, Daniel Weir, Joyce LaCour, Candy Carroll Peavy, Tanya Whitney, Mike Johnson, Grover Joseph Rees, and Rolfe McCollister, challenge SB8. [Doc. 156]. Plaintiff Philip Callais is a registered voter of District 6. Id. Plaintiff Albert Caissie, Jr. is a registered voter of District 5. Id. Plaintiff Elizabeth Ersoff is a registered voter of District 6. Id. Plaintiff Grover Joseph Rees is a registered voter of District 6. Id. Plaintiff Lloyd Price is a registered voter of District 6. Id. Plaintiff Rolfe McCollister is a registered voter of District 5. Id. Plaintiff Candy Carroll Peavy is a registered voter of District 4. Id. Plaintiff Mike Johnson is a registered voter of District 4. Id. Plaintiff Bruce Odell is a registered voter of District 3. Id. Plaintiff Joyce LaCour is a registered voter of District 2. Id. Plaintiff Tanya Whitney is a registered voter of in District 1. Id. Plaintiff Danny Weir, Jr., is a registered voter of District 1. Id. Each of the Plaintiffs is described as a “non-Black voter.” [Doc. 1]. The State Defendants are Secretary of State Nancy Landry, in her official capacity, and the State of Louisiana, represented by Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill. [Doc. 156]. The State intervened as a defendant on February 26, 2024. [Doc. 79]. Press Robinson, Edgar Cage, Dorothy Nairne, Edwin Rene Soule, Alice Washington, Clee Earnest Lowe, Davante Lewis, Martha Davis, Ambrose Sims, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Louisiana State Conference, and Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (collectively "Robinson Intervenors") are African American Louisiana voters and civil rights organizations. Page 15 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 16 of 135 PageID #: 4906 [Doc. 156]. They were Plaintiffs in Robinson, et al v. Landry, No. 3:22-cv-0211-SDD- SDJ (M.D. La.) and intervened here as defendants to defend SB8. [Doc. 156]. They intervened permissively in the remedial phase of this litigation on February 26, 2024, and permissively in the liability phase on March 15, 2024. [Docs. 79, 114]. Davante Lewis lives in District 6. Tr., Vol. III, 567:23-568:1. The voting districts for the other individual Robinson Intervenors was not established in the record. Plaintiffs assert that: (1) the State has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting a racially gerrymandered district; and (2) the State has violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by intentionally discriminating against voters and abridging their votes based on racial classifications across the State of Louisiana. [Doc. 1, ¶ 5]. The Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that SB8 is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, issue an injunction barring the State of Louisiana from using SB8's map of congressional districts for any election, and institute a congressional districting map that remedies these violations. Id., p. 31. F. The Three-Judge Panel and Trial On February 2, 2024, Priscilla Richman, the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an Order Constituting Three-Judge Court. [Doc. 5]. Chief Judge Richman designated Judge Carl E. Stewart, of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Robert R. Summerhays, of the Western District of Louisiana, and Judge David C. Joseph, of the Western District of Louisiana, to serve on the three- judge district court convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Id. On February 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Doc. 17]. On February 21, 2024, Page 16 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 17 of 135 PageID #: 4907 the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction consolidated with trial on the merits—to commence on April 8, 2024, in Shreveport, Louisiana. [Doc. 63]. The hearing commenced on April 8, 2024, and ended on April 10, 2024. Collectively, the parties introduced thirteen (13) witnesses and one hundred ten (110) exhibits. II. EVIDENTIARY RECORD A. Fact Witnesses 1. Legislators a. Alan Seabaugh Alan Thomas Seabaugh is a Louisiana State Senator for District 31, located in northwest Louisiana. Senator Seabaugh took office in January 2024. He had previously served as a Louisiana State Representative for thirteen years. Tr. Vol. I, 42:16-17. Senator Seabaugh testified that the only reason the Legislature was attempting to pass a redistricting plan during the Special Session was the litigation pending in the Middle District of Louisiana, and specifically “Judge Dick saying that she - if we didn't draw the second minority district, she was going to. I think that's the only reason we were there." Id. at 47:22-48:1. When asked if having a second majority-Black district was the one thing that could not be compromised in the plans being considered, Senator Seabaugh testified “that's why we were there." Id. at 50:2. Senator Seabaugh ultimately voted no to SB8 and indicated that he believed the 2022 map (HB1) was a good map. Id. at 52:19-22. On cross examination, Senator Seabaugh acknowledged that, in determining how to draw the new districts, Page 17 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 18 of 135 PageID #: 4908 protecting the districts of Mike Johnson and Stephen Scalise - two of Louisiana's representatives in the United States House of Representatives, serving as Speaker and Majority Leader, respectively – were important considerations. Id. at 60:8-20. b. Thomas Pressly Thomas Pressly is a Louisiana State Senator for District 38, which is located in the northwest corner of Louisiana. Senator Pressly took office in January 2024. He had previously served as a Louisiana State Representative for four years. Tr., Vol. I, 66:1-6. Senator Pressly testified that during the Special Session, “the racial component in making sure that we had two performing African American districts was the fundamental tenet that we were looking at. Everything else was secondary to that discussion." Id. at 69:16-19. Senator Pressly acknowledged that political considerations were also factored into the ultimate redistricting plan, stating: - [t]he conversation was that we would – that we were being told we had to draw a second majority-minority seat. And the question then was, okay, who - how do we do this in a way to ensure that we're not getting rid of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, and Senator Womack spoke on the floor about wanting to protect Julia Letlow as well. Id. at 72:1-7. Senator Pressly testified that he did not believe that his district in the northwest corner of Louisiana shares a community of interest with either Lafayette or Baton Rouge, both located in the southern half of Louisiana, based on either natural disaster concerns or educational needs. Id. at 73:1-23. Senator Pressly spoke against SB8 during the Special Session and testified that he believed the 2022 map should be retained. Id. at 77:6-8. Page 18 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 19 of 135 PageID #: 4909 C. Mandie Landry Mandie Landry is a Louisiana State Representative for House District 91, located in New Orleans. She took office in January 2020. Tr., Vol. II, 366:2-3. Representative Landry testified that the Special Session was convened because the Republicans were afraid that if they did not draw a map which satisfied the court, then the court would draw a map that would not be as politically advantageous for them. Id. at 368:8-10. Representative Landry indicated that she understood Governor Jeff Landry to favor the map created by SB8, in part because he believed the map would resolve the Robinson litigation in the Middle District, and in part because the new map would cause Congressman Garrett Graves a Republican incumbent with whom Landry was believed to have a contentious relationship – to lose his seat. Id. at 369:10-15. d. Royce Duplessis Royce Duplessis is a Louisiana State Senator representing Senate District 5, which is located in the New Orleans area. He took office in December 2022 and previously served as a Louisiana State Representative for over four years. Tr. Vol. III, 512:21-24. Senator Duplessis testified that his understanding of the reason for the Special Session was “to put an end to the litigation and adopt a map that was compliant with the Judge's order." Id. at 519:22-23. Though he was not a member of the Senate's redistricting committee, Senator Duplessis co-sponsored a separate bill during the Special Session, namely SB4, which also created two majority-Black districts. Id. at 521:1-2. SB4 was ultimately voted down in committee in favor of SB8. Id. at 523:14-23. Senator Duplessis testified that he believed SB8 passed Page 19 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 20 of 135 PageID #: 4910 because Governor Landry supported SB8 for political reasons. Id. at 525:1-7. Senator Duplessis voted in favor of SB8 because he believed it complied with the Voting Rights Act, it met the criteria ordered by the court, and was a fair map which would satisfy the people of Louisiana. Id. at 527:23 -528:9. Senator Duplessis testified that he was very proud of the passage of SB8 because: It was always very clear that a map with two majority black districts was the right thing. It wasn't the only thing, but it was a major component to why we were sent there to redraw a map. Id. at 530:15-19. 2. Community Members a. Cedric Bradford Glover Cedric Bradford Glover is a resident of Shreveport, Louisiana, who previously served a total of five terms in the Louisiana House of Representatives, and two terms as mayor of Shreveport. Tr., Vol. II, 454:12-20. Mayor Glover testified that he believes SB8's District 6 reflects common communities of interest, specifically the I- 49 corridor, the communities along the Red River, higher education campuses, healthcare systems, and areas of economic development. Id. at 457:17-458:21. b. Pastor Steven Harris, Sr. Steven Harris, Sr. resides in Natchitoches, Louisiana, where he serves as a full-time pastor and a member of the Natchitoches Parish School Board. Tr., Vol. II, 463:5-6. Pastor Harris' ministerial duties require him to travel to Alexandria, Shreveport, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, and places in between. Id. at 463:18-20. Pastor Harris, who lives and works in District 6, testified that there are communities of interest among the areas in which he regularly travels, specifically churches and Page 20 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 21 of 135 PageID #: 4911 educational institutions. Id. at 466:24 467:16. Pastor Harris testified that he — believes Baton Rouge has more in common with Alexandria and Shreveport than with New Orleans, due to the different culture, foods, and music. Id. at 467:20-468:14. C. Ashley Kennedy Shelton Ashley Kennedy Shelton resides in Baton Rouge and founded and runs the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (the “Coalition"), one of the Robinson Intervenors. Tr., Vol. II, p. 474:8-11. The Coalition is a 501(c)(3) civic engagement organization which seeks to create “pathways to power for historically disenfranchised communities." Id. at 474:24-475:1. She testified that the Coalition has been involved with the redistricting process since the 2020 census by educating the community about the redistricting process, as well as encouraging community involvement in that process. Id. at 475:21. Ms. Shelton initially supported SB4, another map offered in the Special Session which also contained two majority- minority districts, but that map did not move out of committee. Id. at 482:1-2. Ms. Shelton, along with the Coalition, went on to support SB8 because it: centered communities that have never been centered in any of the current congressional districts that they are within. And so when you look at the district that's created in SB8, the communities across that district are living in poverty, have poor health outcomes, lack of access to economic opportunity, similar hospitals, similar size airports. Like there is this there is this opportunity to really center these communities in a way that they have not had the attention in the current districts that they exist within. Id. at 483:6-15. - Page 21 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 22 of 135 PageID #: 4912 d. Davante Lewis Davante Lewis, one of the Robinson Intervenors, is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and currently serves as a commissioner for the Louisiana Public Service Commission and chief strategy officer of Invest in Louisiana. Tr., Vol. III, 542:23-25. Commissioner Lewis testified that he has been involved in politics since he was a teenager and has taken part in the redistricting process on numerous occasions as a lobbyist. Id. at 548:3-15. During the Special Session, Commissioner Lewis initially supported SB4, another bill which also included two majority-minority districts but failed to pass out of committee. Id. at 553:15-22. Commissioner Lewis, who is now a resident in District 6, testified that he was happy with the passage of SB8 because “it accomplishes the goals that I wanted to see which was complying with the rule of law as well as creating a second [B]lack-majority district." Id. at 576:16-18. Commissioner Lewis believes that he shares common interests with voters living in other areas within District 6, namely economies, civic organizations, religious organizations, educational systems, and agriculture. Id. at 578:14-25. On cross- examination, Commissioner Lewis admitted that District 6 intersects four of the five public service commission districts in the state. B. Expert Witnesses a. Dr. Stephen Voss The Court accepted Plaintiffs' witness Dr. Stephen Voss as an expert in the fields of: (i) racial gerrymandering; (ii) compactness; and (iii) simulations.³ Tr., Vol. 3 Plaintiffs retained Dr. Stephen Voss to answer three questions: (1) whether SB8 represents an impermissible racial gerrymander, where race was the predominant factor in Page 22 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 23 of 135 PageID #: 4913 I, 92:13-25; 93:1-19; 111:6-7; 123:7-9. Dr. Voss was born in Louisiana, lived most of his life in Jefferson Parish, and earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard University, where his field of focus was quantitative analysis of political methodology. Id. at 85:12-13; 87:8-21. Dr. Voss began his testimony by comparing the districts created by SB8 to past enacted congressional maps in Louisiana and other proposals that the Legislature considered during the Special Session. Tr., Vol. I, 97:19-98:2. Dr. Voss described District 6 as a district: that stretches, or I guess the term is "slashes," across the state of Louisiana to target four metropolitan areas, which is the majority of the larger cities in the state. It then scoops out from each of those predominant – the majority black and predominantly black precincts from each of those cities. Id. at 93:25; 94:1-5. Dr. Voss explained that the borders of District 6, which include portions of the distant parishes of Lafayette and East Baton Rouge, track along Black communities, including precincts with larger Black population percentages while avoiding communities with large numbers of white voters. Id. at 94:18-95:10. Dr. Voss reiterated that the boundaries of District 6 were drawn specifically to contain heavily Black-populated portions of cities while leaving more white-populated areas in the neighboring districts. Id. at 96:7-16; PE3; PE4. Dr. Voss also testified that, compared to other maps proposed during the Special Session and other past congressional maps, SB8 split a total of 18 of Louisiana's 64 parishes, Tr., Vol. I, the drawing of district lines; (2) whether SB8 sacrificed traditional redistricting criteria in order to create two majority-minority districts; and (3) whether the Black population in Louisiana is sufficiently large and compact to support two majority-minority districts that conform to traditional redistricting criteria. Tr., Vol. I, 91:3-25 (Voss). Page 23 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 24 of 135 PageID #: 4914 97:19-99:11, and, at 62.9 percent of Louisiana's population, had the highest percentage of individuals affected by parish splits. Id. 98:3-99:11; PE6. Dr. Voss also studied the compactness of SB8 under three generally accepted metrics: (i) Reock Score; (ii) Polsby-Popper score; and (iii) Know It When You See It (“KIWYSI”). Tr., Vol. I, 100:22-103:5. Dr. Voss found that across all three measures of compactness, SB8 performed worse than either HB1 (the map that was enacted in 2022) or the map that HB1 replaced from the previous decade. Id. at 104:25-105:4; PE7. Thus, SB8 did not produce compact maps when judged in comparison to other real-life congressional maps of Louisiana. Tr., Vol. I, 107:16-21. Dr. Voss also found that SB8's majority-Black districts were especially non-compact compared to other plans that also included two majority-minority districts. Id. at 106:17-24. According to Dr. Voss, SB8's District 6 scored worse on the Polsby-Popper test than the second majority-Black districts in other proposed plans that created a second majority-Black district. Id. at 106:17-24. Dr. Voss further testified that SB8's and District 6's uniquely poor compactness was not necessary if the goal was to accomplish purely political goals. “If you're not trying to draw a second black majority district, it is very easy to protect Representative Julia Letlow. Even if you are, it's not super difficult to protect 4 According to Dr. Voss, a district's "Reock score" quantifies its compactness by measuring how close the district is to being a circle. Tr., Vol. 1, 100:23-6. A district's "Polsby- Popper" score is intended to take into account a district's jagged edges and “tendrils.” Id., 101:25-102:19. Finally, the “Know It When You See It” method uses a metric derived by panels of judges and lawyers and a representative sample of people looking at the shape of a district and giving their quantification of compactness. Id., 102:20-104:2. The KIWYSI method originated from individuals' subjective judgments, but the metric itself is standardized and uses specific software to compute a numerical figure representing compactness. Id., 103:15-104:2. Page 24 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 25 of 135 PageID #: 4915 Additionally, Representative Julia Letlow,” he testified. Tr., Vol. I, 108:17-21. according to Dr. Voss, the Legislature did not need to enact a map with two majority- minority districts in order to protect Representative Letlow's congressional seat: "[Representative Letlow] is in what historically is called the Macon Ridge...[a]nd given where she is located, it is not hard to get her into a heavily Republican, heavily white district." Id. at 111:15-23. Dr. Voss testified similarly with respect to Representative Garrett Graves, concluding that the Legislature did not need to enact a second majority-minority district in order to put Representative Garrett Graves in a majority-Black district. Id. at 112:2-16. Thus, Dr. Voss concluded that neither the goal of protecting Representative Letlow's district, nor the goal of targeting Representative Graves, would have been difficult to accomplish while still retaining compact districts. Id. at 110:15-22. Dr. Voss testified extensively about simulations, explaining that he used the Redist simulation package (“Redist”) to analyze the statistical probability of the Legislature creating SB8 without race predominating its action.5 Id. at 113:14-115:6. Using Redist, Dr. Voss compared “lab-grown” simulations of possible maps to SB8 in order to analyze the decisions the Legislature made during the redistricting process, Id. at 114:2-23, so that he could judge whether the parameters or constraints under which he created the simulations could explain the deviations evident in SB8. Id. at 118:15-23. Dr. Voss testified that he performed tens of thousands of both “race- 5 According to Dr. Voss, Redist uses Sequential Monte Carlo ("SMC”) simulation in order to generate a representative sample of districts that could have been drawn under certain parameters. Id., 113:8-114:10. Page 25 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 26 of 135 PageID #: 4916 conscious" and "race-neutral” simulations, and that none of these simulations randomly produced a map with two Democratic districts. Id. at 138:9-14. On that basis, Dr. Voss opined that the non-compact features of SB8 are predominantly explained by racial considerations. Id. at 139:17-23. Concluding that District 6 performs worse on the Polsby-Popper score than the second majority-Black district in the other plans; worse on the Reock score than the other plans that created a second majority-Black district, with a very low score; and worse on the KIWYSI method than the other plans and the majority-Black districts they proposed, Id. at 106:18-24, Dr. Voss ultimately opined that SB8 represents an impermissible racial gerrymander. Id. at 92:23-24. b. Dr. Cory McCartan Dr. Cory McCartan was proffered by the Robinson Intervenors in rebuttal to Dr. Voss and was qualified by the Court as an expert in the fields of redistricting and the use of simulations. Tr., Vol. I, 187:5-14. Though Dr. McCartan criticized Dr. Voss for a number of his methodologies, the Court notes that Dr. McCartan conducted no tests or simulations of his own, Id. at 215:18-21, and his testimony was often undercut by his own previous analysis. First, Dr. McCartan criticized Dr. Voss's simulations on grounds that Dr. Voss did not incorporate the relevant redistricting criteria used by actual mapmakers. Id. at 198:10-24. Dr. McCartan also questioned the efficacy of simulations in detecting racial gerrymandering. Id. at 196:13-25; 197:1-12. Yet Dr. McCartan had previously led the Algorithm Assisted Redistricting Methodology (“ALARM”) Project team, which traversed the country simulating multiple districts in multiple states, Page 26 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 27 of 135 PageID #: 4917 - including Louisiana, and authored a paper which declared that simulations are well- suited to assess what types of racial outcomes could have happened under alternative plans in a given state. Id. at 227:9-21. Dr. McCartan also testified that he himself used the ALARM project to detect partisan, or political gerrymandering – ultimately finding that Louisiana had only one plausible district favoring the Democratic party. Id. at 216:23-25. And on cross-examination, Dr. Voss confirmed that Professor Kosuke Imai, who helped develop the Redist software, applied these same simulation techniques in the racial gerrymandering context. Id. at 150:18-151:1. On this point, therefore, the Court finds Dr. McCartan's testimony unpersuasive. Dr. McCartan also criticized Dr. Voss for not imposing a constraint in his simulations for natural or geographic boundaries. Id. at 200:1-6. Yet Dr. McCartan acknowledged that in his work with ALARM to generate Louisiana congressional map simulations, his team did not impose any kind of requirement for natural or geographic boundaries. Id. at 230:24-231:1. Dr. McCartan also criticized Dr. Voss for not adding incumbent protection as a constraint in the simulations, but when pressed, could not testify that this extra constraint would trigger the creation of a second majority-minority district. Id. at 238:11-16 (McCartan). Similarly, Dr. McCartan could not give a convincing reason why it was appropriate for his own team to use a compactness constraint of 1.0, while testifying that this same criterion made Dr. Voss's simulations unrepresentative. Id. at 231:5- 16. Dr. Voss, on the other hand, explained why adjustments to the compactness criterion made the simulation results less reliable. Id. at 162:22-24, 163:21-165:19. Finally, Dr. McCartan confirmed that both his simulations on Louisiana Page 27 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 28 of 135 PageID #: 4918 congressional maps and Dr. Voss's simulations generated plans that were more compact than the enacted version of SB8, which was far worse than the Polsby- Popper compactness scores of both Dr. McCartan's and Dr. Voss's simulations. Id. at 233:20-24 (McCartan). Dr. McCartan also acknowledged that his own partisan gerrymandering simulations yielded no more than 10 out of 5,000 maps with a second Democratic seat. Id. at 235:4-236:12. was the In evaluating the testimony of Dr. Voss and Dr. McCartan, the Court finds Dr. Voss's testimony to be credible circumstantial evidence that race predominant factor in crafting SB8. Though Dr. McCartan provided some insight into the uses of simulations in detecting the presence of racial gerrymandering, his testimony indicated that his own team had performed simulations under conditions not unlike Dr. Voss's, and with conclusions that supported Dr. Voss. Dr. McCartan's other criticisms of Dr. Voss were either not well-founded or rebutted. c. Michael Hefner Plaintiffs proffered Michael Hefner as an expert demographer, and he was qualified by the Court as such. Tr., Vol. II, 270:23-15; 271:1-5. Mr. Hefner is from Louisiana and has lived his whole life in various parts of the state. Id. at 258:3-6; [Doc. 182-8]. Having worked in the field of demography for 34 years, most of Mr. Hefner's work consists of creating redistricting plans for governmental entities, including municipalities and school boards, throughout the State of Louisiana after decennial censuses; conducting precinct management work for Louisiana parish governments; working on school desegregation cases in Louisiana; and conducting site-location analyses in Louisiana. Tr., Vol. II, 257:9-22; Doc. 182-8. Mr. Hefner Page 28 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 29 of 135 PageID #: 4919 testified that he came to the following conclusions during his analysis for this case: (1) given the geographic distribution and concentration of the Black population in Louisiana, it is impossible to create a second majority-minority district and still adhere to traditional redistricting criteria, Tr., Vol. II, 271:11-22, 282:21-283:6; and (2) race predominated in the drafting of SB8. Id. at 271:23; 272:1-14. Mr. Hefner explained that the Black population in Louisiana is highly dispersed across the State and is concentrated in specific urban areas, including New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Shreveport.6 Tr., Vol. II, 281:7-15; 283:19-285:1; 339:20-340:4 (Hefner); see also Mr. Hefner's Heat Map, [Docs. 182-9, 182-10]. Using a heat map he created based on data representing the Black voting age population (“BVAP”) across the State from the 2020 census, Mr. Hefner testified that outside the New Orleans and East Baton Rouge areas, the Black population is highly dispersed across the state. Tr., Vol. II, 281:4-15. Mr. Hefner opined that, given this dispersion, it is impossible to draw a second majority-minority congressional district without violating traditional redistricting criteria. Id. at 282:22-283:6. Focusing on SB8, Mr. Hefner testified that SB8 is drawn to trace the areas of the state with a high BVAP to create a second majority-minority district, Tr., Vol. II, 283:15-285:1, echoing the testimony of Dr. Voss. Specifically, Mr. Hefner stated that District 6's borders include the concentrated Black populations in East Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Opelousas, Natchitoches, Mansfield, Stonewall, and up to Shreveport, Id. 6 According to Mr. Hefner, the highest concentration of African American voters is in New Orleans; the second highest concentration is in East Baton Rouge; and the third highest concentration is in Shreveport. Tr., Vol. II, 281:4-15. Page 29 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 30 of 135 PageID #: 4920 at 283:15-285:1, but carved concentrated precincts out of the remainder of the parishes to avoid picking up too much population of non-Black voters. Id. at 283:15- 285:1. Taking Lafayette Parish as an example, Mr. Hefner testified that District 6 includes the northeast part of the parish, where voting precincts contain a majority of Black voters, while excluding the remainder of the parish, in which the precincts are not inhabited by predominantly Black voters. Id. at 283:22-284:4. Likewise, in Rapides Parish, District 6 splits Rapides Parish to include only the precincts in which there is a high concentration of Black voters, for the purpose of including the overall BVAP in the district. Id. at 284:4-8. Mr. Hefner also testified that SB8's compactness score is extremely small. In fact, it is so low on the Polsby-Popper and Reock metrics that it is almost not compact at all. Id. at 302:21-303:2; PE21. Explaining that District 6 is extremely long and extremely strung out, Tr., Vol. II, 303:18-20, Mr. Hefner testified that SB8 scored lower than HB1 on both the Polsby-Popper and Reock tests. Id. at 302:16-303:25; PE21. Mr. Hefner testified that District 6 is not reasonably compact, Tr., Vol. II, 304:11-14; its shape is awkward and bizarre, Id. at 304:23-305:6; it is extremely narrow at points, Id. at 305:18-306:2; its contiguity is tenuous, Id. at 293:23-24; and it splits many parishes and municipalities, including four of the largest parishes in the State (Caddo, Rapides, Lafayette, and East Baton Rouge), each of which are communities of interest. Id. at 295:7-8. Finally, Mr. Hefner testified that the Plaintiffs' redistricting plan, introduced as Illustrative Plan 1, was a reasonable plan 7 The Polsby-Popper scale goes from 0 (no compactness) to 1 (total compactness). Mr. Hefner testified that District 6 had a Polsby-Popper score of 0.05. Id., 303:13-20. Page 30 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 31 of 135 PageID #: 4921 that can be drawn in a race-neutral manner; adheres to the use of traditional redistricting principles; preserves more communities of interest; provides more compact election districts; preserves the core election districts; and balances the population within each district. Id. at 272:17-25; 273:1-2. a. Anthony Fairfax Mr. Anthony Fairfax testified on behalf of the Robinson Intervenors to rebut the testimony of Mr. Hefner, and was qualified by the Court as an expert in redistricting and demography. Tr., Vol. II, 379:6-15. Contradicting Mr. Hefner, Mr. Fairfax testified that traditional redistricting principles could be used to create maps with a second majority-Black district. Id. at 381-383:24. But on rebuttal, Mr. Fairfax admitted that the map he used did not account for where people lived within parishes, and his map therefore failed to take account of where Black voters are located in each parish. Id. at 407:4-125; 408:1-12. Therefore, on the issue of parish splitting, Mr. Fairfax's testimony was unpersuasive. Rather, as Mr. Hefner testified, Fairfax's analysis fails to show the Court whether District 6 specifically targeted those pockets of high populations of Black voters. Id. at 292:13-293:3. Tellingly, in discussing preservation of communities of interests, parishes, and municipalities, Mr. Fairfax agreed with Mr. Hefner that SB8 split more parishes and municipalities than HB1, Id. at 385:14-18; 389:5-9, and that SB8 split more parishes and municipalities than the previously enacted plan. Id. at 385:11-15; 389:2-9. Page 31 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 32 of 135 PageID #: 4922 III. APPLICABLE LAW To obtain permanent injunctive relief, the plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities tip in that party's favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.”8 Crown Castle Fiber, L.L.C. v. City of Pasadena, Texas, 76 F.4th 425, 441 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 820 (2024); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 32, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that: "[N]o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1. The intent of the provision is “to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race." Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642, 113 S. Ct. 2816, 2824, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) ("Shaw P'). As applied to redistricting, the Equal Protection Clause bars “a State, without sufficient justification, from ‘separat[ing] its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race." Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. 178, 187, 137 S. Ct. 788, 797, 197 L.Ed.2d 85 (2017) (citing Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995)). Thus, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the creation and implementation of districting plans that include racial gerrymanders, with few exceptions. “A racial gerrymander [is] the 8 The Court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with the full trial on the merits. See [Doc. 63]. Page 32 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 33 of 135 PageID #: 4923 deliberate and arbitrary distortion of district boundaries for [racial] purposes.” Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 640 (citing Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 164, 106 S. Ct. 2797, 2826, 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986) (Powell, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part), abrogated on other grounds by Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 204 L.Ed.2d 931 (2019)). Courts analyze racial gerrymandering challenges under a two-part burden-shifting framework. First, a plaintiff bears the burden to prove that “race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district." Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. This requires a plaintiff to show that "the legislature 'subordinated' other factors - compactness, respect for political subdivisions, partisan advantage, what have you to 'racial considerations."" Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 291, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1464, 197 L.Ed.2d 837 (2017) (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 916). The plaintiff may make the requisite showing “either through circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision...." Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254, 267, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 1267, 191 L.Ed.2d 314 (2015) (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 916). If Plaintiff meets the burden of showing race played the predominant factor in the design of a district, the district must then survive strict scrutiny. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 292. At this point, the burden of proof “shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." Cooper, 581 U.S. at 285 (citing Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 193). "Racial Page 33 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 34 of 135 PageID #: 4924 gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes" is still subject to strict scrutiny. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 657. Where the state seeks to draw a congressional district by race for remedial purposes under Section 2, the state must have a “strong basis in evidence" for "finding that the threshold conditions for section 2 liability are present" under Gingles. And, to survive strict scrutiny, “the district drawn in order to satisfy § 2 must not subordinate traditional districting principles to race substantially more than is 'reasonably necessary' to avoid § 2 liability.” Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 979, 116 S. Ct. 1941, 1961, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996). A. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Racial Predominance The Court first addresses whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that race predominated in drawing District 6. Racial awareness in redistricting does not necessarily mean that race predominated in the Legislature's decision to create a second majority-minority district. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646. When redistricting, a legislature may be aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of other demographic information such as age, economic status, religion, and political affiliation. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646. Race consciousness, on its own, does not make a district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander or an act of impermissible race discrimination. Id. But while districts may be drawn for remedial purposes, Section 2 of the Voting Rights “never require[s] adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 29 – 30, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 1492, 216 L.Ed.2d 60 (2023) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, to survive strict scrutiny, Page 34 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 35 of 135 PageID #: 4925 “the district drawn in order to satisfy § 2 must not subordinate traditional districting principles to race substantially more than is ‘reasonably necessary' to avoid § 2 liability." Vera, 517 U.S. at 979. As discussed above, racial predominance may be shown through either circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or both. Ala. Legis. Black Caucus, 135 S. Ct. at 1267. Here, the Robinson Intervenors and the State argue that political considerations predominated in drawing the boundaries of District 6. They argue that the State had to create a second majority-minority district based on the district court's ruling in the Robinson litigation and that District 6 was drawn with the primary purpose of protecting key Republican incumbents, such as Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Representative Julia Letlow. It is clear from the record and undisputed that political considerations incumbents — played a role in how District 6 was drawn. Plaintiffs, however, contend that considerations of race played a qualitatively greater role in how the State drew the contours of District 6 than these political considerations. 1. Circumstantial Evidence - the protection of In the redistricting realm, appearances matter. A district's shape can provide circumstantial evidence of a racial gerrymander. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647. In the past, the Supreme Court has relied on irregular district shapes and demographic data to find racial gerrymandering.9 See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 910-16 (1996) ("Shaw II"); Miller, 515 U.S. 900; Vera, 517 U.S. 952. 9 Significantly, "[s]hape is relevant not because bizarreness is a necessary element of the constitutional wrong or a threshold requirement of proof, but because it may be Page 35 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 36 of 135 PageID #: 4926 " Here, as described by Dr. Voss, District 6 'slashes' across the state of Louisiana” and includes portions of four disparate metropolitan areas. But – critical to our analysis District 6 only encompasses the parts of those cities that are inhabited by majority-Black voting populations, while excluding neighboring non- minority voting populations. Tr., Vol. I, 93:25; 94:1-5; 94:18-95:10; 96:7-16; PE3; PE4. His description encapsulates what the following maps show on their face: Act 2 - 1st ES (2024) - Congressional Districts - East Baton Rouge Precincts as of 01-10-2024 Baton Rouge Close Up of 2024 Enacted Map (JE17). persuasive circumstantial evidence that race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines." Miller, 515 U.S. at 912-913; See Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408, 431 (E.D.N.C. 1994); Hays I; but see DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409, 1413 (E.D. Cal. 1994). Thus, a district's bizarre shape is not the only type of circumstantial evidence on which parties may rely. Id. Page 36 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 37 of 135 PageID #: 4927 T ++ - Act 2 - 1st ES (2024) - Congressional Districts - Lafayette O- 6 # 10 Lafayette Close Up of 2024 Enacted Map (JE17). Precincts as of 01-10-2024 Act 2 - 1st ES (2024) - Congressional Districts - Rapides Precincts as of 01-10-2024 Alexandria Close Up of 2024 Enacted Map (JE17). Page 37 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 38 of 135 PageID #: 4928 Act 2 - 1st ES (2024) - Congressional Districts - Caddo ✓ Precincts as of 01-10-2024 Shreveport Close Up of 2024 Enacted Map (JE17). Like Shaw II and Vera, this case presents evidence of “mixed motives" in creating District 6 ― motives based on race and political considerations. Unlike a single motive case, any circumstantial evidence tending to show neglect of traditional districting principles, such as compactness and respect for parish lines, caused District 6's bizarre shape could seemingly arise from a “political motivation as well as a racial one.” Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. at 308 (citing Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 547 n.3, 119 S. Ct. 1545, 1549, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999)). In mixed motive cases such as this one, the Supreme Court has noted that “political and racial reasons are capable of yielding similar oddities in a district's boundaries." Id. Accordingly, this Court faces “a formidable task: It must make ‘a sensitive inquiry' into all ‘circumstantial and direct evidence of intent' to assess whether the plaintiffs have Page 38 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 39 of 135 PageID #: 4929 managed to disentangle race from politics and prove that the former drove a district's lines." Id. Turning to the record, Mr. Hefner's “heat map” is particularly helpful as circumstantial evidence of the motives driving the decisions as to where to draw the boundaries of District 6. The “heat map” shows that outside of the New Orleans and East Baton Rouge areas, the state's Black population is highly dispersed across the state. Tr., Vol. II 281:4-15. Mr. Hefner opined that District 6 was designed as such to collect these highly dispersed BVAP areas in order to create a second majority- minority district. Id., 283:15-285:1. Map 15-SB 8 Plan with African American Populations PE 16. wanstor Brotior LA Morahouse La Clalbome LA Union LA West Carro LA Eat Car Lincoln LA Outor in LA RICHIED LA Madson LA Bienville LA Jackson LA Red River LA De Soto Sabine LA WIR LA Caldwell LA Frankle LA Tansas LA Catahoula LA Lasane LA Grant LA Rapidas vemon LA Avoyotes Brand L 4M LA Eppards LA 6 si fallar L (5) evangana La ALA Jon Davi Cairasu LA St Martin LA R22 Rohe LA 3 Camaron LA voiton LA St. Mary LA Page 39 of 60 pngpanca LA Washington La $ Taramany LA in LA St. Jean he Boptet LA St James (4 Oriesca La Assumption Chorios LA Tamabeans LA Lafourche LA

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 40 of 135 PageID #: 4930 When Mr. Hefner's heat map is superimposed on SB8, the "story of racial gerrymandering" becomes evident. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 917 (“... when [the district's] shape is considered in conjunction with its racial and population densities, the story of racial gerrymandering ... becomes much clearer”). That exhibit shows that District 6 sweeps across the state to include the heavily concentrated Black population neighborhoods in East. Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Opelousas, Natchitoches, and Mansfield. Most telling, District 6 juts up at its northern end to carve out the Black neighborhoods of Shreveport and separates those neighborhoods from the majority white neighborhoods of Shreveport and Bossier City ("Shreveport- Bossier"). Tr., Vol. II, 283:15-285:1. Map 21-Shreveport Area in Caddo Parish Greenwood 4 Dainhard 6 Shin-report Cand LA Stonewolf DeSoto LA PE 18. SCOR CALIFOR Page 40 of 60 Reity lite Eastwood Houghton Hower City Bossier LA Doyling Webster LA Bienville LA Fryerson %18 AP BIK 0% to 40% 40% to 50% 50% to 60% 61% to 100% Other 10,000 20,000 30,000 Feet

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 41 of 135 PageID #: 4931 District 6 also dips down from its northwest trajectory and splits the majority of Black neighborhoods of Lafayette from the rest of the city and parish. Specifically, District 6 includes Lafayette's northeast neighborhoods, which contain a predominantly Black population, while leaving the rest of the city and parish in neighboring District 3. Id. at 283:22-284:4. In sum, the “heat maps" and demographic data in evidence tell the true story – that race was the predominate factor driving decisions made by the State in drawing the contours of District 6. This evidence shows that the unusual shape of the district reflects an effort to incorporate as much of the dispersed Black population as was necessary to create a majority-Black district. 2. Direct Evidence - The Court next looks to the direct evidence of the Legislature's motive in creating District 6 in other words, what was actually said by the individuals who had a hand in promulgating, drafting, and voting on SB8. The direct evidence buttresses the Court's conclusion that race was the predominant factor the legislators relied upon in drawing District 6. The record includes audio and video recordings, as well as transcripts, of statements made by key political figures such as the Governor of Louisiana, the Louisiana Attorney General, and Louisiana legislators, all of whom expressed that the primary purpose guiding SB8 was to create a second majority-Black district due to the Robinson litigation. As discussed supra, the Middle District, after the preliminary injunction hearing in Robinson, found a likelihood of success on the merits of the Robinson Plaintiffs' claim that a second majority-minority district was required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights. Although the preliminary injunction was Page 41 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 42 of 135 PageID #: 4932 vacated by the Fifth Circuit to allow the Legislature to enact a new map, legislators chose to draw a map with a second majority-Black district in order to avoid a trial on the merits in the Robinson litigation. See, e.g., Tr. Vol. III, 588:11-17 (“Judge Dick has put us in a position and the Fifth Circuit, the panel that reviewed that decision, and the whole court, when I asked them to go en banc, by declining to go on en banc, have put us in a position pus [sic] of where we are today where we need to draw a map."); JE28, 46:5-101 (same); see also Tr. Vol. III, 589:1-3 ("The courts, never the less, have told us to draw a new map. And they have indicated that we have a deadline to do that or Judge Dick will draw the map for us."); JE28 at 36:14-17 (same); JE36 at 33 (Senator Price: “Regardless of what you heard, we are on a court order and we need to move forward. We would not be here if we were not under a court order to - get this done."); JE36 at 1 (Senator Fields: “[B]oth the district and the appeals court have said we need to do something before the next congressional elections.”); JE31, 26:12-24 (Chairman Beaullieu: “Senator Womack, why are we here today? What what brought us all to this special session as it as it relates to, you know, what we're discussing here today?”; Senator Womack: “The middle courts of the district courts brought us here from the Middle District, and said, ‘Draw a map, or I'll draw a map.’ Chairman Beaullieu: “Okay."%; Senator Womack: "So that's what we've done."; Chairman Beaullieu: “And - and were you - does - does this map achieve that middle court's orders?"; Senator Womack: “It does."); PE41, 75:24-76:2 (Representative Lyons, Chairman of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, stating “[T]he mission we have here is that we have to create two majority-Black districts."); PE41, 121:19-22 (Senator Womack stating that “... we all know why we're here. We were Page 42 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 43 of 135 PageID #: 4933 ordered to - ... to draw a new Black district, and that's what I've done."); PE41, 9:3-8 (Representative Amedee: "Is this bill intended to create another black district?" Representative Beaullieu: “Yes, ma'am, and to comply with the judge's order."); JE31, 97:17-19, 21-24 (Representative Carlson: “the overarching argument that I've heard from nearly everyone over the last four days has been race first race seems to be, at least based on the conversations, the driving force...."). SB 8's sponsor, Senator Womack, also explicitly admitted that creating two majority-Black districts was "the reason why District 2 is drawn around the Orleans Parish and why District 6 includes the Black population of East Baton Rouge Parish and travels up the I-49 corridor to include Black population in Shreveport." PE41 at 26. The Court also acknowledges that the record includes evidence that race- neutral considerations factored into the Legislature's decisions, such as the protection of incumbent representatives. See JE29 at 2-3 (Senator Womack discussing that SB8 protects Congresswoman Julia Letlow, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise); Tr. Vol. I, 71:11-18, 79:1-4 (Senator Pressley testifying that “[w]e certainly wanted to protect Speaker Johnson ... We wanted to make sure that we protected Steve Scalise. Julia Letlow is on Appropriations. That was also very important that we try to keep her seat as well."); Id. at 60:8-61:15 (Senator Seabaugh testifying that the fact that the Speaker and Majority Leader are from Louisiana is “kind of a big deal” and that protecting Speaker Page 43 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 44 of 135 PageID #: 4934 Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Representative Letlow was “an important consideration when drawing a congressional map.”). 10 However, considering the circumstantial and the direct evidence of motive in the creation of District 6, the Court finds that “racially motivated gerrymandering had a qualitatively greater influence on the drawing of the district lines than politically motivated gerrymandering.” Vera, 517 U.S. at 953. As in Shaw II and Vera, the State first made the decision to create a majority-Black district and, only then, did political considerations factor into the State's creation of District 6. The predominate role of race in the State's decisions is reflected in the statements of legislative decision-makers, the division of cities and parishes along racial lines, the unusual shape of the district, and the evidence that the contours of the district were drawn to absorb sufficient numbers of Black-majority neighborhoods to achieve the goal of a functioning majority-Black district. If the State's primary goal was to protect congressional incumbents, the evidence in the record does not show that District 6 in its current form was the only way to achieve that objective. As explained by the Supreme Court: 10 At bottom, it is not credible that Louisiana's majority-Republican Legislature would choose to draw a map that eliminated a Republican-performing district for predominantly political purposes. The Defendants highlight the purported animosity between Governor Jeff Landry and Representative Garrett Graves to support their contention that political considerations served as the predominant motivating factor behind SB8. However, given the slim majority Republicans hold in the United States House of Representatives, even if such personal or intra-party animosity did or does exist, it is difficult to fathom that Louisiana Republicans would intentionally concede a seat to a Democratic candidate on those bases. Rather, the Court finds that District 6 was drawn primarily to create a second majority-Black district that they predicted would be ordered in the Robinson litigation after a trial on the merits. Thus, it is clear that race was the driving force and predominant factor behind the creation of District 6. Page 44 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 45 of 135 PageID #: 4935 One, often highly persuasive way to disprove a States contention that politics drove a district's lines is to show that the legislature had the capacity to accomplish all its partisan goals without moving so many members of a minority group into the district. If you were really sorting by political behavior instead of skin color (so the argument goes) you would have done - or, at least, could just as well have done - this. Such would-have, could-have, and (to round out the set) should-have arguments are a familiar means of undermining a claim that an action was based on a permissible, rather than a prohibited, ground. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 317. In the present case, the record reflects that the State could have achieved its political goals in ways other than by carving up and sorting by race the citizens of Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Alexandria, and Shreveport. Put another way, the Legislature's decision to increase the BVAP of District 6 to over 50 percent was not required to protect incumbents and supports the Plaintiffs' contention that race was the predominate factor in drawing the district's boundaries. In sum, Plaintiffs have met their initial burden, and the burden now shifts to the State to prove that District 6 survives strict scrutiny. B. Strict Scrutiny When a Plaintiff succeeds in proving racial predominance, the burden shifts to the State to "demonstrate that its districting legislation [was] narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest." Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 193 (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 920). 1. Compelling State Interest The State argues that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed without deciding that compliance with the Voting Rights Act is a compelling interest. See Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 915; Cooper, 581 U.S. at 292; Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 193. To Page 45 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 46 of 135 PageID #: 4936 show that the districting legislation satisfies the "narrow tailoring” requirement “the state must establish that it had 'good reasons' to think that it would transgress the act if it did not draw race-based district lines." This “strong basis (or 'good reasons') standard” provides “breathing room” to the State “to adopt reasonable compliance measures that may prove, in perfect hindsight not to have been needed.” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 293 (quoting Bethune-Hill, 581 U.S. at 293) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Supreme Court has often remarked that “redistricting is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State,” not of the courts. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579, 603, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2324, 201 L.Ed.2d 714 (2018) (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 915). Turning to the present case, the State argues that it had a “strong basis” in evidence to believe that the district court for the Middle District was likely, after a trial on the merits in Robinson, to rule that Louisiana's congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and order the creation of a second majority-Black district. See Robinson Appeal Ruling at 583 (vacating the district court's preliminary injunction and granting the Legislature the opportunity to draw a new map instead of advancing to a trial on the merits of HB1); See also Robinson Docket, [Doc. 315] ("If the Defendant/Intervenors fail to produce a new enacted map on or before [January 30, 2024], this matter will proceed to a trial on the merits on [February 5, 2024], which shall continue daily until complete"); see, e.g., JE36 at 4 (Senator Price: "We all know that we've been ordered by the court that we draw congressional districts with two minority districts. This map will comply with the order of both the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the district court. They have said that the Legislature must pass a map that has two majority black districts."); JE33, 5:1-7 Page 46 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 47 of 135 PageID #: 4937 (Representative Beaullieu: "As Senator Stine said earlier in this week, ‘It's with a heavy heart that I present to you this other map,' but we have to. It's that clear. A federal judge has ordered us to draw an additional minority seat in the State of Louisiana."); JE34, 11:3–7 (Senator Carter: “[W]e came together in an effort to comply with a federal judge's order that Louisiana provide equal representation to the African Americans in the State of Louisiana, and we have an opportunity to do that."); JE36 at 18 (Representative Marcelle: “Let's not let Judge Dick have to do what our job is, which is to create a second minority-majority district."); JE30, 20:22-21:4 (Senator Duplessis: "It's about a federal law called the Voting Rights Act that has not been interpreted just by one judge in the Middle District of Louisiana who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, but also a U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that's made up of judges that were appointed by predominantly Republican presidents, and a United States Supreme Court that has already made rulings."); Tr. Vol. I, 47:22-48:1 (Senator Seabaugh: "Well, the – really, the only reason we were there was because of the other litigation; and Judge Dick saying that she - if we didn't draw the second minority district, she was going to. I think that's the only reason we were there."); Tr. Vol. I, 69:24-70:4 (Senator Pressly: "We were told that we had to have two performing African American districts. And that we were that that was ― the main tenet that we needed to look at and ensure that we were able to draw the court - draw the maps; otherwise, the Court was going to draw the maps for us"). The Court assumes, without deciding, that compliance with Section 2 was a compelling interest for the State to attempt to create a second majority-Black district in the present case. However, even assuming that the Voting Rights Act is a Page 47 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 48 of 135 PageID #: 4938 compelling state interest in this case, that compelling interest does not support the creation of a district that does not comply with the factors set forth in Gingles or traditional districting principles. See e.g., Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 915 ("We assume, arguendo, for the purpose of resolving this suit, that compliance with Section 2 could be a compelling interest" but hold that the remedy is not narrowly tailored to the asserted end); Vera, 517 U.S. at 977 (plurality opinion) (“[W]e assume without deciding that compliance with [the Voting Rights Act], as interpreted by our precedents, can be a compelling state interest” but hold that the districts at issue are not "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest (citation omitted)); Ala. Legis. Black Caucus, 575 U.S. at 279 (“[W]e do not here decide whether ... continued compliance with § 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] remains a compelling interest" because "we conclude that the District Court and the legislature asked the wrong question with respect to narrow tailoring.”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has made clear that, in the context of a constitutional challenge to a districting scheme, “unless each of the three Gingles prerequisites is established,“ ‘there neither has been a wrong nor can be a remedy" and the districting scheme does not pass muster under strict scrutiny. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. at 306 (quoting Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 41, 113 S. Ct. 1075, 1084, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993)). With respect to traditional districting requirements, the Supreme Court has consistently warned that, "§ 2 never require[s] adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles. Its exacting requirements, instead, limit judicial intervention to 'those instances of intensive racial politics' where the 'excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters Page 48 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 49 of 135 PageID #: 4939 equal opportunity to participate."" Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 29–30 (internal citations omitted). 11 Accordingly, whether District 6, as drawn, is “narrowly tailored" requires the Court to address the Gingles factors as well as traditional districting criteria. a. Consideration of the Gingles Factors The Supreme Court in Gingles set out how courts must evaluate claims alleging a Section 2 violation of the Voting Rights Act. Gingles involved a challenge to North Carolina's districting scheme, which purportedly diluted the vote of its Black citizens. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 34–36. Gingles emphasized precisely what Section 2 guards against. “The essence of a § 2 claim," the Court explained, “is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters.” Id. at 47. This inequality occurs where an "electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out” minority voters' “ability to elect their preferred candidates." Id. at 48. This risk is greatest “where minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates” and where minority voters are submerged in a majority voting population that “regularly defeat[s]" their choices. Ibid. 11 The concern that Section 2 may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the states is, of course, not new. See, e.g., Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 657 ("Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters."); Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 41-42. To ensure that Gingles does not improperly morph into a proportionality mandate, courts must rigorously apply the "geographically compact” and “reasonably configured” requirements. Id. at 44 (Kavanaugh concurrence, n. 2). Page 49 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 50 of 135 PageID #: 4940 But Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act explicitly states that, “nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that Gingles does not mandate a proportional number of majority-minority districts. Indeed, “[i]f Gingles demanded a proportional number of majority-minority districts, States would be forced to group together geographically dispersed minority voters into unusually shaped districts, without concern for traditional districting criteria such as county, city, and town lines. But Gingles and this Court's later decisions have flatly rejected that approach.” Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 43–44 (Kavanaugh concurring) (citing Abbott, 585 U.S. at 615; Vera, 517 U.S. at 979; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50; Miller, 515 U.S. at 917–920; and Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 644–649). Instead, Gingles requires the creation of a majority-minority district only when, among other things: (i) a State's redistricting map cracks or packs a large and "geographically compact" minority population and (ii) a plaintiff's proposed alternative map and proposed majority-minority district are “reasonably configured" – namely, by respecting compactness principles and other traditional districting criteria such as county, city, and town lines. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 43 (Kavanaugh concurring) (citing Cooper, 581 U.S. at 301–302; Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153–154, 113 S. Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993)). In order to succeed in proving a Section 2 violation under Gingles, Plaintiffs must satisfy three specific "preconditions." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. First, the “minority group must be sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute Page 50 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 51 of 135 PageID #: 4941 a majority in a reasonably configured district.” Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398, 402, 142 S. Ct. 1245, 1248, 212 L.Ed.2d 251 (2022) (per curiam) (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 46–51). Case law explains that a district will be reasonably configured if it comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact. See Ala. Legis. Black Caucus, 575 U.S. at 272. “Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51. Third, “the minority must be able to demonstrate that the ... white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Ibid. Finally, a plaintiff who demonstrates the three preconditions must also show, under the "totality of circumstances,” that the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters. Id. at 38-38 and 45-46 (identifying several factors relevant to the totality of circumstances inquiry, including "the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state ... that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process."). Each of the three Gingles preconditions serves a different purpose. The first, which focused on geographical compactness and numerosity, is “needed to establish that the minority has the potential to elect a representative of its own choice in some [reasonably configured] single-member district.” Growe, 507 U.S. at 40. The second, which concerns the political cohesiveness of the minority group, shows that a representative of its choice would in fact be elected. Ibid. The third precondition, which focuses on racially polarized voting, “establish[es] that the challenged districting thwarts a distinctive minority vote" at least plausibly on account of race. Page 51 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 52 of 135 PageID #: 4942 Ibid. Finally, the totality of circumstances inquiry recognizes that application of the Gingles factors is “peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case." 478 U.S. at 79. Before a court can find a violation of Section 2, therefore, they must conduct "an intensely local appraisal" of the electoral mechanism at issue, as well as “searching practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality.”” Ibid. In the present case, the State simply has not met its burden of showing that District 6 satisfies the first Gingles factor – that the “minority group [is] sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district." The record reflects that, outside of southeast Louisiana, the State's Black population is dispersed. That required the State to draw District 6 as a “bizarre” 250- mile-long slash-shaped district that functions as a majority-minority district only because it severs and absorbs majority-minority neighborhoods from cities and parishes all the way from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. As discussed below, this fails to comport with traditional districting principles. b. Traditional Districting Principles The first Gingles factor requires that a minority population be “[geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district." Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 18 (quoting Wisconsin, 595 U.S. at 402). This requires consideration of traditional districting principles. Traditional districting principles consist of six criteria that arose from case law. The first three are geographic in nature and are as follows: (1) compactness, (2) contiguity, and (3) preservation of parishes and respect for political subdivisions. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647. The Supreme Court has emphasized that “these criteria are Page 52 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 53 of 135 PageID #: 4943 important not because they are constitutionally required – they are not, cf. Gaffney - v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 752, n. 18, 93 S. Ct. 2321, 2331, n. 18, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973) – but because they are objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines.” Id. The other three include preservation of communities of interest, preservation of cores of prior districts, and protection of incumbents. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 916; Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 740 (1983). ... shall Joint Rule 21 - enacted by the Legislature in 2021 – contains criteria that must be satisfied by any redistricting plan created by the Legislature, separate and apart from compliance with the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause. JE2. Joint Rule 21 states, relevantly, that “each district within a redistricting plan contain whole election precincts as those are represented as Voting Districts (VTDs)" and "[i]f a VTD must be divided, it shall be divided into as few districts as possible." Id. at (G)(1)-(2). Joint Rule 21 further requires the Legislature to “respect the established boundaries of parishes, municipalities, and other political subdivisions and natural geography of this state to the extent practicable.” Id. at (H). However, this requirement does not take precedence over the preservation of communities of interest and "shall not be used to undermine the maintenance of communities of interest within the same district to the extent practicable.” Id. The Supreme Court case of Miller v. Johnson demonstrates how traditional districting criteria applies to a racial gerrymandering claim. 515 U.S. at 910–911. There, the Supreme Court upheld a district court's finding that one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was the product of an impermissible racial gerrymander. Id. Page 53 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 54 of 135 PageID #: 4944 At the time, Georgia's BVAP was 27 percent, but there was only one majority- minority district. Id. at 906. To comply with the Voting Rights Act, Georgia's government thought it necessary to create two more majority-minority districts thereby achieving proportionality. Id. at 920-921. But like North Carolina in Shaw I, Georgia could not create the districts without flouting traditional criteria. Instead, the unconstitutional district "centered around four discrete, widely spaced urban centers that ha[d] absolutely nothing to do with each other, and stretch[ed] the district hundreds of miles across rural counties and narrow swamp corridors.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 908. The Court called the district a geographic “monstrosity." Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 27-28 (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 909). C. Communities of Interest Perhaps more than any other state of its size, the State of Louisiana is fortunate to have a rich cultural heritage, including diverse ethnicities, customs, economic drivers, types of agriculture, and religious affiliations. While the Court is not bound by the decisions in the Hays litigation - made some thirty years ago and involving a different though similar map, and different Census numbers – much of the "local appraisal" analysis from Hays I remains relevant to an analysis of SB8. There, the Hays court concluded that the distinct and diverse economic interests encapsulated in the challenged district, namely cotton and soybean plantations, centers of petrochemical production, urban manufacturing complexes, timberlands, sawmills and paper mills, river barge depots, and rice and sugarcane fields are strung together to form the eclectic and incoherent industrial base of District 4. These diverse segments of the State economy have little in common. Indeed, their interests more often conflict than harmonize. Page 54 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 55 of 135 PageID #: 4945 Hays I, 839 F. Supp. at 1201. Though this was written 30 years ago, the same is true today. And like the predecessor districts drawn in Hays, it is readily apparent to anyone familiar with Louisiana history and culture that Congressional District 6 also violates the traditional north-south ethno-religious division of the State. Along its circuitous route, this new district combines English-Scotch- Irish, mainline Protestants, traditional rural Black Protestants, South Louisiana Black Catholics, Continental French-Spanish-German Roman Catholics, sui generis Creoles, and thoroughly mixed polyglots, each from an historically discrete and distinctive region of Louisiana, as never heretofore so extensively agglomerated. Id. Indeed as succinctly stated by the Hays court, the differences between North Louisiana, Baton Rouge, and Acadiana in term of culture, economic drivers, types of agriculture, and religious affiliations are pronounced. 12 This is so well known that 12 Among other strong cultural and ethnic groups divided by SB8, the French Acadian ("Cajun") and Creole communities in Southwest Louisiana have a strong identity and a shared history of adversity. The Acadians, for their part, were expelled from Nova Scotia by the British and Anglo-Americans during the French and Indian War, and some settled into the southwestern parishes of Louisiana (“Acadiana"). See Carl A. Brasseaux, The Founding of New Acadia: The Beginning of Acadian Life in Louisiana, 1765-1803 (Chapter 5) (Louisiana State University Press 1987). This historical event is well-known in Louisiana and referred to as Le Grand Dérangement. See William Faulker Rushton, The Cajuns From Acadia to Louisiana (Farrar Straus Giroux 1979). The Acadian refugees made their homes in the foreign swamps and bayous of southern Louisiana and from there, built a rich and persisting culture – marked by their distinct dialect of French, and their cuisine, music, folklore, and Catholic faith. See Brasseaux, The Founding of New Acadia. In 1921, Louisiana's Constitution eliminated any reference to the French language and instead required only English to be taught, used, and spoken in Louisiana schools, which detrimentally affected the continuation of Cajun French. Roger K. Ward, The French Language in Louisiana Law and Legal Education: A Requiem, 57 La. L. Rev. 1299 (1997). https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5694&context=lalrev. Remarkably, after years of cultural suppression, the late 1960s/early 1970s witnessed collective activism to revive Cajun French and culture in the area. Id. at 1299; see also https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/reviving-the-cajun-dialect. Thankfully, Louisiana's 1974 Constitution safeguarded efforts by Cajun cultural groups to “ensure [their] preservation and proliferation." Id. at 1300. To this day, Acadiana celebrates its Page 55 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 56 of 135 PageID #: 4946 any Louisiana politician seeking statewide office must first develop a strategy to bridge the regional cultural and religious differences in Louisiana. 13 There is no doubt that District 6 divides some established communities of interest from one another while collecting parts of disparate communities of interest into one voting district. Among other things, District 6 in SB8 splits six of the ten parishes that it touches. As the Court succinctly states in Hays, “there is no more fundamental unit of societal organization in the history of Louisiana than the parish.” Hays I, 839 F. Supp. at 1200. District 6 also divides the four largest cities and metropolitan areas in its path along clearly racial lines. Among these are three of the four largest cities in Louisiana ―i.e., Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Shreveport. And the maps in the record are clear that the division of these communities is based predominantly on the location of majority-Black voting precincts. Indeed, SB8, just like the congressional districts in Hays I, "violates the boundaries of nearly all major municipalities in the State." Hays Francophone ties with festivals such as Festival International de Louisiane, which features Francophone musicians and artisans from around the world, and Festival Acadiens and Créoles, the largest Cajun and Creole festival in the world. Further, to preserve the language, organizations such as CODOFIL support the preservation of the French language in Louisiana, and on a smaller scale, many community members form “French tables” where only French is allowed to be spoken. The unique community of Acadiana, among many others in Louisiana, with a deep connection and awareness of its past, certainly constitutes a community of interest. Race predominating, SB8 fails to take into account Louisiana's diverse cultural, religious, and social landscape in any meaningful way. 13 Attempting to bridge the north-south religious divide, one of Louisiana's most famous politicians, Huey Long, began his stump speech by claiming, that, “when I was a boy, I would get up at six o'clock in the morning on Sunday, and I would take my Catholic grandparents to mass. I would bring them home, and at ten o'clock I would hitch the old horse up again, and I would take my Baptist parents to church." A colleague later said, “I didn't know you had any Catholic grandparents.” To which he replied, “Don't be a damned fool. We didn't even have a horse." Page 56 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 57 of 135 PageID #: 4947 I, 839 F. Supp. at 1201. The law is crystal clear on this point. As the Supreme Court held in Allen v. Milligan, it is unlawful to “concentrate [] a dispersed minority population in a single district by disregarding traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions,” reaffirming that “[a] reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise separated by geographical and political boundaries," raises serious constitutional concerns. 599 U.S. at 27 (citing Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647). Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that SB8's District 6 does not satisfy the "geographically compact" and "reasonably configured" Gingles requirement. d. Respect for Political Boundaries Subdivisions and Natural Nor does SB8 take into account natural boundaries such as the Atchafalaya Basin, the Mississippi River, or the Red River. Just as in Miller, District 6 of SB8 "centers around four discrete, widely spaced urban centers that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and stretches the district hundreds of miles across rural counties and narrow swamp corridors.” 515 U.S. at 908; Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 27-28 (citing Miller v. Johnson). Specifically, District 6's population centers around the widely-spaced urban centers of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge - each of which is an independent metropolitan area – and are connected to one another only by rural parishes having relatively low populations. Importantly, none of these four cities or the parishes in which they are located are, by themselves, large enough to require that they be divided to comply with the “one person, one vote" Page 57 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 58 of 135 PageID #: 4948 requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 566, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 1384, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). e. Compactness - The record also includes statistical evidence showing that District 6 is not "compact" as required by traditional districting principles. Specifically, Dr. Voss testified that, based on three measures of compactness (i) the Reock Score; (ii) the Polsby-Popper score; and (iii) the Know It When You See It ("KIWYSI") score the current form of District 6 in SB8 performs worse than the districts in either HB1 (the map that was enacted in 2022) or the map that HB1 replaced from the previous decade. Tr., Vol. I, 100:22-103:5; 104:25-105:4; PE7. Thus, SB8 does not produce compact maps when judged in comparison to other real-life congressional maps of Louisiana. Tr., Vol. I, 107:16-21. Dr. Voss also opined that SB8's majority-Black districts were especially non-compact compared to other plans that also included two majority-minority districts. Id. at 106:17-24. According to Dr. Voss, SB8's District 6 scored worse on the Polsby-Popper test than the second majority-Black districts in other proposed plans that created a second majority-Black district. Id. at 106:17-24. In sum, District 6 does not satisfy the first Gingles precondition nor does it comply with traditional districting principles. Accordingly, SB8 and, more specifically, District 6 cannot withstand strict scrutiny. That being said, while the record is clear that Louisiana's Black population has become more dispersed and integrated in the thirty years since the Hays litigation (and Louisiana now has only six rather than the seven Congressional districts it had at that time), this Court does not decide on the record before us whether it is feasible to create a second majority- Page 58 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 59 of 135 PageID #: 4949 Black district in Louisiana that would comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, we do emphasize that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act never requires race to predominate in drawing Congressional districts at the sacrifice of traditional districting principles. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 29–30 (internal citations omitted). V. REMEDIAL PHASE The Court will hold a status conference to discuss the remedial stage of this trial on May 6, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. CST. VI. CONCLUSION As our colleagues so elegantly stated in Hays II, the long struggle for civil rights and equal protection under the law that has taken place in Louisiana and throughout our country, includes: countless towns across the South, at schools and lunch counters, at voter registrar's offices. They stood there, black and white, certain in the knowledge that the Dream was coming; determined that no threat, no spittle, no blow, no gun, no noose, no law could separate us because of the color of our skin. To say now: "Separate!” “Divide!” “Segregate!” is to negate their sacrifice, mock their dream, deny that self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that no government may deny them the equal protection of its laws. Hays II at 125. The Court agrees and finds that SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause as an impermissible racial gerrymander. In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. The State of Louisiana is prohibited from using SB8's map of congressional districts for any election. Page 59 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 60 of 135 PageID #: 4950 A status conference is hereby set on May 6, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. CST to discuss the remedial stage of this trial. Representatives for each party must attend. THUS, DONE AND SIGNED on this 30th day of April 2024. Patteaux ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA avid Joseph DAVID C. JOSEPH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Page 60 of 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 61 of 135 PageID #: 4951 Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Contrary to my panel colleagues, I am not persuaded that Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that S.B. 8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The totality of the record demonstrates that the Louisiana Legislature weighed various political concerns—including protecting of particular incumbents—alongside race, with no factor predominating over the other. The panel majority's determination that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional is incredibly striking where, as here, Plaintiffs did not even attempt to address or disentangle the various political currents that motivated District 6's lines in S.B. 8.1 While this inquiry should end at racial predominance, I would further hold that S.B. 8 satisfies strict scrutiny because the Supreme Court has never imposed the aggressive incursion on state sovereignty that the panel majority advocates for here. Indeed, the panel majority's requirements for permissible electoral map trades in the substantial "breathing room” afforded state legislatures in reapportionment for a tightly wrapped straight-jacket. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. I. Factual Background The Supreme Court has undoubtedly recognized that in a "more usual case," alleging racial gerrymandering, a trial court "can make real headway by exploring the challenged district's conformity to traditional districting principles, such as compactness and respect for county lines." 1 Notably, none of the plaintiffs in this case demonstrated that S.B. 8 had a discriminatory effect on them based on their race. None of them testified or otherwise entered any evidence into the record of their racial identity, which conflicts with the well- recognized principle that actionable intentional discrimination must be against an "identifiable group." See Fusilier v. Landry, 963 F.3d 447, 463 (5th Cir. 2020). As an aside, nearly all of the plaintiffs in this case lack standing to allege this racial gerrymandering claim because they do not reside in District 6. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 744-45 (1996).

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 62 of 135 PageID #: 4952 Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 308 (2017). Notably, the panel majority has proceeded full steam ahead in this direction without proper regard for the atypical nature of this case and trial record. Because of this, the panel majority has mis-stepped with regard to their approach, resulting in numerous errors and omissions in both their reasoning and holding. One such omission derives from the fact that none of the prior redistricting cases arrive from the same genesis as this one. This case involves important distinctions, worth noting, that make it anything but a "usual" racial gerrymandering case. See Cooper, 581 U.S. at 308. First, the State has made no concessions to racial predominance. 2 Second, the State affirmatively invokes a political motivation defense. 3 Third, the State constructively points—not to a Justice Department demand letter as "a strong basis in evidence" but—to the findings of an Article III judge.4 The panel majority has failed to adequately grapple with each of these relevant factors, I will address them herein. I start with the 2020 Census because understanding the setting is necessary in deciding this nuanced and context-specific case. The Supreme Court has said as much. It has held that the "historical background of the decision is one evidentiary source, particularly if it reveals a series of official 2 See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 918 (1995) ("The court supported its conclusion not just with the testimony . . . but also with the State's own concessions."). 3 E.g., Cooper, 581 U.S. at 308 (2017) (citing Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 547 n.3 (1999) ("Cromartie l'")) (emphasizing the importance of inquiries into asserted political or partisanship defenses since bizarrely shaped districts “can arise from a 'political motivation' as well as a racial one"). 4 See Miller, 515 U.S. at 918 ("Hence the trial court had little difficulty concluding that the Justice Department spent months demanding purely race-based revisions to Georgia's redistricting plans, and that Georgia spent months attempting to comply.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 63 of 135 PageID #: 4953 actions taken for invidious purposes. The specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision also may shed some light on the decisionmaker's purposes." Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977) (internal citations omitted). Effectually, it is a mistake to view this case in a vacuum-as if the Louisiana Legislature's redistricting efforts and duties burgeon in January 2024. Instead, viewing the case within the lens of the appropriate backdrop―the United States and Louisiana Constitutions, Robinson v. Ardoin, 5 and Governor Landry's call to open the 2024 Extraordinary Legislative Session—the Legislature had an obligation to reapportion. The U.S. Constitution sets out that “[t]he House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." It further vests state legislatures with the primary responsibility to craft federal congressional districts, namely through the Election Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Article III, § 6 of the Louisiana Constitution charges the Louisiana Legislature with the duty to reapportion the single-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives after each decennial census. La. Const. art. III, § 6. In April 2021, the results of the 2020 Census were delivered to Louisiana and the state's congressional apportionment remained six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Robinson Interv. FOF, ECF 189-1, 11 (citing Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d 767). The 2020 Census data would drive the state of Louisiana's redistricting process. See La. Const. art. III, § 6; Robinson 1, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 767. 5 Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759, 767 (M.D. La. 2022) ("Robinson I"), cert. granted before judgment, 142 S. Ct. 2892 (2022), and cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 143 S. Ct. 2654 (2023), and vacated and remanded, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023). 3

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 64 of 135 PageID #: 4954 "Leading up to their redistricting session, legislators held a series of 'roadshow' meetings across the state, designed to share information about redistricting and solicit public comment and testimony, which lawmakers described as absolutely vital to this process." Id. "The drawing of new maps was guided in part by Joint Rule No. 21, passed by the Louisiana Legislature in 2021 to establish criteria that would ‘promote the development of constitutionally and legally acceptable redistricting plans."" Robinson 1, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 767. “The Legislature convened on February 1, 2022 to begin the redistricting process; on February 18, 2022, H.B. 1 and S.B. 5, the bills setting forth new maps for the 2022 election cycle, passed the Legislature." Id. at 767-68. Following the promulgation of H.B. 1, a select group of Black voters brought a claim under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("VRA") to invalidate the congressional maps. See id. at 760. The events of that litigation as it proceeded through in the Middle District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit propelled the newly elected Governor Jeff Landry to call an Extraordinary Legislative Session in January 2024. See JE 35 at 10–14. Ultimately, S.B. 8 "was chosen over other plans with two majority-Black districts that were more compact and split fewer parishes and municipalities because those plans failed to achieve the overriding goal of protecting the seats of United States House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Representative Julia Letlow at the expense of Representative Garret Graves." Robinson Interv. Post-trial Memo, ECF 189 at 1; Robinson Interv. FOF, ECF 189-1, at 33–35, ¶¶ 135–142. While the panel majority repeatedly concedes that the Hays litigation is three decades old and relies on now-antiquated data, its opinion nevertheless presses forward by drawing parallels and making conclusions that are devoid of crucial context. The panel majority avers that "much of 4

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 65 of 135 PageID #: 4955 the 'local appraisal' analysis from Hays I remains relevant to an analysis of S.B.8," claiming that S.B. 8's District 6 succumbs to the same violations of the “traditional north-south ethno-religious division of the State.” Majority Op. 53-54. Unlike Hays, where the cartographer tasked with drawing the map conceded that he "concentrated virtually exclusively on racial demographics and considered essentially no other factor except the ubiquitous constitutional ‘one person-one vote' requirement,” the record before this court is filled with evidence that political factors were paramount in the drawing of S.B. 8. Additionally, the racial makeup of the state has changed drastically over the past three decades. As the Middle District of Louisiana adeptly concluded: "6 By every measure, the Black population in Louisiana has increased significantly since the 1990 census that informed the Hays map. According to the Census Bureau, the Black population of Louisiana in 1990 was 1,299,281.285. At the time, the Census Bureau did not provide an option to identify as more than one race. The 2020 Census results indicate a current Black population in Louisiana of 1,464,023 using the single-race Black metric, and 1,542,119 using the Any Part Black metric. So, by the Court's calculations, the Black population in Louisiana has increased by at least 164,742 and as many as 242,838 since the Hays litigation. Hays, decided on census data and demographics 30 years ago, is not a magical incantation with the power to freeze Louisiana's congressional maps in perpetuity. Hays is distinguishable and inapplicable. Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 834. Given this pivotal context, I deem it a grievous error for the panel majority to place the Hays map and S.B. 8 map 6 Hays v. State, 936 F. Supp. 360, 368 (W.D. La. 1996).

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 66 of 135 PageID #: 4956 side-by-side and imply that the similarities in district shape alone are dispositive. The panel majority is correct, however, that "[this] Court is not bound by the decisions in the Hays litigation." Majority Op. 53. II. Racial Predominance Because of the interminable interplay between satisfying the Fourteenth Amendment and complying with § 2 of the VRA, it is axiomatic that electoral districting involves some racial awareness. Redistricting violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when race is the "predominant" consideration in deciding “to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district." Miller, 515 U.S. at 913, 916. However, the Supreme Court has highlighted that: [Electoral] districting differs from other kinds of state decision-making in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 646 (1993) (“Shaw I"); see also Miller, 515 U.S. at 915–16 (“Redistricting legislatures will . . . almost always be aware of racial demographics; but it does not follow that race predominates in the redistricting process."). The Court again reemphasized in Easley v. Cromartie that “race must not simply have been a motivation for the drawing of a majority-minority district but the predominant factor motivating the legislature's districting decision." 532 U.S. 234, 241 (2001) ("Cromartie II") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Consequently, in my view, the panel majority has not properly assessed "predominance" under the relevant caselaw. Specifically, the Supreme Court has directed "courts, in assessing the sufficiency of a challenge to a districting plan, [to] be sensitive to the 6

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 67 of 135 PageID #: 4957 complex interplay of forces that enter a legislature's redistricting calculus.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915-16. This sensitive inquiry requires a careful balancing of the legislative record and evidence adduced at trial to unpack the motivations behind the lines on the map. The Court in Miller explained that: The distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty, together with the sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith that must be accorded legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race. Id. at 916. The Supreme Court in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama reaffirmed the characterizations of "predominance" and the associated burden of proof. 575 U.S. 254, 272 (2015) Plainly, “a plaintiff pursuing a racial gerrymandering claim must show that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district." Id. (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 916) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have shown racial awareness-to be sure. But identifying awareness is not the end of the inquiry. To prove racial predominance, a "plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to racial considerations." Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. The relevant "traditional race- neutral districting principles," which the Court has listed many times, include "compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests," incumbency protection, and political affiliation. Miller, 515 U.S. at 901; Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 964, 968 (1996). A plaintiff's burden in a racial gerrymandering case is "to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and 7

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 68 of 135 PageID #: 4958 demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision." Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. Plaintiffs have failed to show racial predominance through either direct or circumstantial evidence or any combination thereof. A. Circumstantial Evidence

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 69 of 135 PageID #: 4959 Like the plaintiffs in Cromartie I, Plaintiffs here seek to prove their racial gerrymandering claim through circumstantial evidence—e.g., maps showing the district's size, shape, an alleged lack of continuity, and statistical and demographic evidence. See 526 U.S. at 541–43. In their post- trial memorandum, Plaintiffs maintain that the "bizarre shape of District 6 reveals racial predominance." ECF 190 at 15. In opposition, the State raises its "political motivation" defense by alleging that: (1) “the Governor and the Legislature made a political judgment to reclaim the State's sovereign right to draw congressional maps rather than cede that responsibility to the federal courts” and (2) “the contours of the S.B. 8 map were themselves motivated by serious political calculations." State's Post Trial Memo at 5-6. Because "political and racial reasons are capable of yielding similar oddities in a district's boundaries," the Court in Cooper entrusted trial courts with "a formidable task: [to] make ‘a sensitive inquiry' into all 'circumstantial and direct evidence of intent' to assess whether the plaintiffs have managed to disentangle race from politics and prove that the former drove a district's lines." Cooper, 581 U.S. at 308 (quoting Cromartie I, 526 U.S. at 546). Here, the trial record underscores that Plaintiffs have made no effort to disentangle race consciousness from the political factors motivating District 6's precise lines. Therefore, the panel majority cannot undertake the "sensitive inquiry" required. Because Plaintiffs have fallen short, the panel majority takes a myopic view of the record and pieces together slithers of circumstantial evidence without comprehensively analyzing all pieces of evidence to the contrary to craft a "story of racial gerrymandering." See Majority Op. at 39 (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 917). 6

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 70 of 135 PageID #: 4960 First, I begin by explaining how the panel majority's narrow perspective incorporates no evidence that District 6's lines were drawn solely based on race. Second, I address how Plaintiffs' inconsistent demographic testimony is deficiently limited in scope to support the conclusion that race predominated. Third, I discuss how Plaintiffs' similarly impaired simulation data fails to meet the demanding burden as required by binding precedent. i. The Shape of District 6 A point of agreement amongst the panel in this case is that “[a] district's shape can provide circumstantial evidence of a racial gerrymander." Majority Op. 35. However, we diverge based on how we apply this significant point, as the panel majority confuses evidence that the Legislature sought to create a second majority-Black district with evidence that race was the “dominant and controlling” factor in the drawing of S.B. 8's contours. 10

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 71 of 135 PageID #: 4961 The Supreme Court has acknowledged that notwithstanding the fact that circumstantial evidence—like a district's unusual shape-can give rise to an inference of an “impermissible racial motive," such a bizarre shape “can arise from a 'political motivation' as well as a racial one.” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 308; Cromartie I, 526 U.S. at 547 n.3.7 As such, the inquiry does not stop at a rudimentary examination of the district's lines in some precincts. In Cooper, the Court further clarified this point by articulating that "such evidence [of a ‘highly irregular' shape] loses much of its value when the State asserts partisanship as a defense, because a bizarre shape” may be attributed best to political or personal considerations for a legislator instead of racial considerations. See 581 U.S. at 308. The panel majority's and Plaintiffs' inability to coherently parse these considerations is particularly striking as there have been several instances in Louisiana "where legislators wanted a precinct in their district because their grandmother lived there." See, e.g., Trial Tr. 177 (testimony of Dr. Voss). Nonetheless, the panel majority ignores this crucial step of the circumstantial evidence analysis, eliding to other “mixed motive” cases. Majority Op. 38. 7 See also Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 905 (1996) (“Shaw II") (acknowledging that "serpentine district" was "highly irregular and geographically non-compact by any objective standard"); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913 (1995) ("Shape is relevant . . . because it may be persuasive circumstantial evidence that race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines."). 11

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 72 of 135 PageID #: 4962 However, a closer comparison between the instant case and those prior "mixed motive" cases reveals how inapt these comparisons are. In Shaw I, the Court stated that in "exceptional cases," a congressional district may be drawn in a “highly irregular” manner such that it facially cannot be "understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race." Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646-47 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Richard H. Pildes, Richard Niemi, Expressive Harms, "Bizarre Districts," and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483 (1993). Since that utterance in Shaw I, the Court has never struck down a map based on its shape alone. Nonetheless, the panel majority functionally does so here on the basis of severely cabined analyses of select precincts in the metropolitan areas within the district. See Plaintiffs' Br. 9-10; Majority Op. 38. 12 12

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 73 of 135 PageID #: 4963 The panel majority cites to Vera as a basis for its conclusion that the circumstantial evidence in this case is sufficient to show racial predominance. A closer look at that case demonstrates how inapt that comparison is. In Vera, the Court considered a challenge to three districts in Texas's reapportionment plan following the 1990 census. 517 U.S. at 956. There, as here, the Texas Legislature admitted that it intentionally sought to draw three districts "for the purpose of enhancing the opportunity of minority voters to elect minority representatives to Congress." See Vera v. Richards, 861 F. Supp. 1304, 1337 (S.D. Tex. 1994). However, the record there was replete with specific, direct evidence that several members of the Texas Legislature were moving around Black neighborhoods and precincts into the new Congressional districts that they then hoped to run for. Id. at 1338-40. The Court noted that the Texas Legislature used a computer program called "REDAPPL" to aid in drawing district lines. 517 U.S. at 961. The software incorporated racial composition statistics for the proposed districts as they were drawn on a “block-by-block" level. Id. (noting that the “availability and use of block-by-block racial data was unprecedented”). With all of this in mind, the Court then rejected the state's incumbency protection defense because the district court's "findings amply demonstrate[d] that such influences were overwhelmed in the determination of the districts' bizarre shaped by the State's efforts to maximize racial divisions." 517 U.S. at 975. None of that is present in this case. This is not a case like Vera, where the political motives of self-interested electoral hopefuls directly attributed to the precise placement of the electoral map lines that comprised those racially gerrymandered districts. There is no § 5 preclearance letter in which the state legislature, speaking with one voice, explains that the odd shapes in the map result solely from “the maximization of minority voting 13

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 74 of 135 PageID #: 4964 strength." See id. The panel majority is correct in noting that this is a mixed motive case. But to note this and then to subsequently make a conclusory determination as to racial predominance is hard to comprehend. Particularly so where broad swaths of the record are not addressed. In fact, a quick comparison of District 6 (depicted in lime green below) to the "highly irregular" districts from Vera (depicted in black outlines) underscores how the district's shape alone is insufficient evidence to prove racial predominance.³ Simply put, one of these is not like the others. 8 While the following images are not at a 1:1 scale, the striking visible differences between District 6 in S.B. 8 and the districts in Vera-which more clearly evince an intent to carve up communities and neighborhoods under the guise of invidious racial segregation—show how just examining a few portions of the district is insufficient to parse out whether race predominated. See 861 F. Supp. at 1336 (noting the borders "change from block to block, from one side of the street to the other, and traverse streets, bodies of water, and commercially developed areas in seemingly arbitrary fashion"). 14

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 75 of 135 PageID #: 4965 LIVE கெண் W Jack 15

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 76 of 135 PageID #: 4966 District 6's shape is not meaningfully comparable to the series of substantially thinner, sprawling, salamander-like districts that have been deemed impermissible racial gerrymanders. In spite of these glaring differences, the panel majority erroneously concludes that a racial gerrymander occurred here in spite of several inconsistencies in Plaintiffs' expert testimony and a limited review of the legislative and trial records. See Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 242-43. It ignores the Court's explicit determinations that evidence of race-consciousness considered in conjunction with other redistricting principles “says little or nothing about whether race played a predominant role" in the reapportionment process. Id. at 253-54 (emphasis in original); Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 (legislatures "will ... almost always be aware of racial demographics" in the reapportionment process); Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646 (holding same). It also ignores the well- established principles that “[p]olitics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment . . . [and] that districting inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences.” Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753 (1973); see also Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 285 (2004) (plurality opinion) (acknowledging that districting is "root-and-branch a matter of politics"); Trial Tr. 80 (testimony of Sen. Pressly) (admitting that adjudging political considerations of competing prospective legislative actions are “root and branch"). Where there is a “partisanship” or “political motivation” defense, more is required. 16

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 77 of 135 PageID #: 4967 The panel majority errs in its analysis of the metropolitan areas in District 6 because it relies solely on the fact that the Legislature created a second majority-Black district to show racial predominance. In Shaw I, the Court declined to adopt the view that the panel majority offers here—that evidence of “the intentional creation of majority-minority districts, without more, always gives rise to an equal protection claim." 509 U.S. at 649 (cleaned up). Compare id. (expressing no view as to whether this action constitutes a de facto equal protection violation), with id. at 664 (White, J., dissenting) (“[T] hat should not detract attention from the rejection by a majority [of the Court] of the claim that the State's intentional creation of majority-minority districts transgressed constitutional norms."); see also United Jewish Orgs. of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey ("UJO"), 430 U.S. 144, 165 (1977) ("It is true that New York deliberately increased the nonwhite majorities in certain districts in order to enhance the opportunity for election of nonwhite representatives from those districts. Nevertheless, there was no" equal protection violation); cf. Vera, 517 U.S. at 959 (“We thus differ from Justice Thomas, who would apparently hold that it suffices that racial considerations be a motivation for the drawing of a majority- minority district" for strict scrutiny to apply) (emphasis in original). In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the Court explained that "[e]ven where a challenger alleges a conflict [with traditional redistricting principles], or succeeds in showing one, the court should not confine" its racial predominance “inquiry to the conflicting portions of the lines.” 580 U.S. 178, 191 (2017). 9 Vera, 517 U.S. at 958. 17

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 78 of 135 PageID #: 4968 Here, the panel majority makes the mistake of stopping at the district's contours in the major metropolitan areas in the state without fully considering or crediting the abundance of evidence demonstrating these choices were political. See Majority Op. 40 ("In sum, the 'heat maps' and demographic data in evidence tell the true story-that race was the predominate factor driving decisions made by the State in drawing the contours of District" Six). Because the panel majority's plain eye examination loses much of its value in the face of the state's "political motivation" defense, I now will contextualize the relevant circumstantial evidence of legislative intent in this case, including claims of political motivation. ii. Expert Testimony 18

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 79 of 135 PageID #: 4969 Plaintiffs' circumstantial evidence elicited through expert testimony fails to demonstrate that race was the Legislature's controlling motive in drawing S.B. 8. The panel majority makes much ado of Mr. Michael Hefner's dot density map 10 and testimony that the districting decisions shaping District 6 in Lafayette, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport could only be explained by racial considerations. While the Court has accepted evidence of a district's shape and demographics to prove racial predominance, it has required the plaintiff to disentangle race from political considerations. See Cromartie I, 526 U.S. at 546. Here, Plaintiffs' expert testimony fails to account for several valid, non-racial considerations that explain the district's shape to impermissibly conclude that race predominated. Cf. Chen v. City of Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[T]he plaintiffs' burden in establishing racial predominance is a heavy one."). Plaintiffs point to the district's low compactness scores and testimony from two experts opining that the Legislature subordinated traditional redistricting criteria to prove their case via circumstantial evidence. Plaintiffs' Br. 8-12. Notwithstanding my own evidentiary determination that several traditional principles of redistricting do explain District 6's shape in S.B. 8,11 I now explain that Plaintiffs' offered circumstantial evidence is insufficient to prove the predominance of race. See Chen, 206 F.3d at 506. a. Demographic Evidence 10 Majority Op. 38-39. 11 See infra Part I.B.i-ii. 19 19

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 80 of 135 PageID #: 4970 The legislative record in this case is inundated with both direct and circumstantial evidence that political considerations predominated in the drafting and passing of S.B. 8. 12 Plaintiffs assert that their demographer, Mr. Hefner, provided testimony that the “awkward and bizarre shape" of the district suggests that race predominated over traditional redistricting criteria. Trial Tr. 304–05. He testified that the district was "very elongated," "contorted," and narrow at points to attach two centers of high BVAP together in one district. Trial Tr. 286. However, Mr. Hefner also acknowledged that incumbency and compliance with the VRA are also important traditional redistricting criteria. ¹³ Trial Tr. 293. He also explained that political dynamics frequently factor into redistricting. Trial Tr. 321. Ultimately, he concluded that the Louisiana Legislature "can't create a second majority-minority district and still adhere to traditional redistricting criteria” and that “race predominated in the drafting” of S.B. 8. Trial Tr. 271– 72. Put another way, no permissible redistricting factor could explain S.B. 8's configuration. 12 See id. 13 Q. Are there additional criteria that can be considered? A. Yes. Incumbency can be considered as to not putting incumbents against each other. Preservation of political entities. It's similar to communities of interest but some specified as political entries, which would be parishes, precincts, municipalities, those that have political boundaries. Also, too, race plays a factor as well, because that's part of what the Voting Rights Act calls attention to for consideration. So those are some of the other criteria that we generally take a look at as we're drafting redistricting plans. Trial Tr. 293 (emphasis added). 20 20

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 81 of 135 PageID #: 4971 But there are several logical gaps in Mr. Hefner's testimony. Mr. Hefner limited his examination of S.B. 8 to the factors of communities of interest, compactness, and preservation of core districts. Thus, he "did not review incumbency." Trial Tr. 272. When asked about the importance of incumbency on redistricting, he opined that a legislature should avoid pitting incumbents against each other to prevent very contentious and unproductive political bodies that fail to “serve the needs of the people." Trial Tr. 335. Mr. Hefner's failure to consider the other politically motived incumbency protection rationales provided by S.B. 8's sponsor 14 demonstrates the unreliability of his testimony. He further constrained his analysis to S.B. 8, H.B. 1, and Plaintiffs' Illustrative Plan 1. He did not review any "of the other plans with two majority black districts" proposed in the 2024 redistricting session, nor did he review "any of the amendments that were offered on [S.B. 8] in the 2024 redistricting session.” Trial Tr. 317–18. 14 See supra Part II.B.i.a. 21 24

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 82 of 135 PageID #: 4972 The gaps in Mr. Hefner's analysis severely undercut his opinion that race predominated over respecting communities of interests and political subdivisions. It strains credulity to say that one factor was controlling over all others while simultaneously ignoring several overriding factors. While Mr. Hefner criticized S.B. 8 for the number of parish and community splits it contained, he did not criticize the other maps he examined for that purpose. For instance, his opinion that race predominated in the drafting of S.B. 8 was based in part on the amount of parish splits and divisions of cultural subdivisions tracked by the Louisiana Folklife Program as compared to prior maps. Trial Tr. 337. However, on cross-examination, Mr. Hefner conceded that a district in H.B. 1 split the same number of folklife areas as District 6 in S.B. 8. Trial Tr. 337-38. Additionally, Intervenors' expert, Mr. Fairfax, provided credible testimony that showed that S.B. 8 distributed its parish and municipal splits amongst the districts more equitably in comparison to H.B. 1. Trial Tr. 385–89. Mr. Hefner did not account for such distinguishing factors, which tended to challenge his broad conclusion that two majority-minority districts could not be drawn in Louisiana while adhering to traditional redistricting principles. 22 22

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 83 of 135 PageID #: 4973 Further inconsistencies persisted in his testimony. Mr. Hefner did not offer the same critiques of the shapes of districts in Plaintiffs' Illustrative Plan 1. In fact, he opined that that map "adhered to traditional redistricting principles.' .”15 Notwithstanding this point, Mr. Hefner agreed that District 5 of Illustrative Plan 1 spanned approximately 230 miles from end to end. 16 By Mr. Hefner's own calculus, District 5 of the plan is a district that is virtually not compact at all. District 6 of S.B. 8 ranges nearly the same length, but he did not agree that S.B. 8 “adhered to traditional redistricting principles." These shifting goalposts based upon whether Plaintiffs or the Intervenors posited the question further demonstrates that little to no weight can be placed on his testimony. Thus, the obvious tension between his opinions based on which party it benefits substantially diminishes its weight here, but the panel majority erroneously accepts portions of his testimony to justify its conclusion. It does so even though none of Mr. Hefner's testimony attempts to unpack the entanglement of the two factors of race and politics plainly present in this case. 15 Q. Let me just ask it this way. What does Plaintiffs' Illustrative Plan Number 1, Exhibit PE-14, what does that represent? A. That plan is a congressional plan that preserves District 2 as a traditional majority-minority district. It generally follows what has been in place for the past couple of census cycles. And the division of the rest of the state into districts largely follows. It's somewhat similar to the traditional boundaries that have been used in the past. Some deviations, but generally overall it follows that general configuration. Q. Based on your review of this map, does it adhere to traditional redistricting principles? A. In my opinion it does. Trial Tr. 275-76. 16 The Plan's District Five contained a district spanning roughly 230 miles from Washington Parish in the Southeastern tip of the state all the way up to the Northern portion of the state, with Ouachita Parish serving as a main population center. See Trial Tr. 341. 23 23

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 84 of 135 PageID #: 4974 Mr. Hefner testified that he did not speak to any legislators from the 2024 session or consult any sources within the Legislature informing him of the legislative imperatives underlying S.B. 8. See Trial Tr. 321 ("Q. And do you have any other basis for knowing what any particular legislator thought about the district lines in [S.B. 8] or why they supported them? A. I did see some [television] interviews of some legislators after [S.B. 8] was approved.”). Thus, his ultimate conclusion that race predominated over any permissible factor is factually unsupported because he failed to examine several traditionally accepted factors of redistricting. Most glaring is his failure to examine, analyze, or otherwise critique S.B. 8's incumbency protection considerations or the Legislature's rejection of amendments that solely sought to increase BVAP within the district and added additional parish splits. RI 42; Trial Tr. 573-74 (describing how the legislature struck down an amendment "increased the BVAP in both District 2 and District 6" in a bipartisan vote because it added additional parish splits to the map); Trial Tr. 575 (noting the Legislature's bipartisan rejection of efforts to just "mov[e] black precincts around for no particular reason other than to do so"). 24 24

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 85 of 135 PageID #: 4975 The legislative history of S.B. 8 demonstrates that the Legislature took great consideration to avoid merely lumping enough Black Voting Age Population ("BVAP") into two districts to satisfy the Robinson I court. Mr. Hefner's failure to account for the history of amendments to S.B. 8 demonstrates how his narrative of racial predominance in the Legislature disintegrates upon review of the record. The Legislature rejected amendments that solely sought to increase BVAP in specific districts and were voted down and discouraged by the bill's proponents and author. See Trial Tr. 317–18. As the legislative record shows, Senator Heather Cloud of Avoyelles Parish introduced an amendment that introduced an additional split in District 6, increasing the number of parish splits in S.B. 8 to sixteen, one more split than H.B. 1. Although Mr. Hefner criticizes the number of parish splits in S.B. 8 to serve as evidence that the Legislature racially gerrymandered here, he admittedly did not know that Senator Cloud's amendment was offered to further protect Congresswoman Letlow's seat by moving her own constituents into Letlow's district. JE 29 at 5-6. This extra parish split also narrows District 6 before it traverses through Alexandria. It also explains why the district is narrower at that point and― in Mr. Hefner's view—bears tenuous contiguity. ¹7 See Trial Tr. 293–94. .17 17 On a related note, the legislative record also established that Rapides Parish is accustomed to split representation in a single-member district capacity. Senator Luneau of Rapides Parish noted that in the reapportionment process for State Senate districts, his home parish answered to "six different [state] senators." JE 34 at 9-10. Prior jurisprudence demonstrates that further segmentation of parishes accustomed to splitting to achieve partisan goals. In Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, the Fifth Circuit held that no racial gerrymander occurred where “the Parish was not unaccustomed to splitting districts in order to achieve political goals." 185 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, the contours of the Rapides Parish area in S.B. 8 cannot seriously be considered to be the product of racial gerrymandering—as Plaintiffs allege—without more evidence than mere conjecture. 25 25

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 86 of 135 PageID #: 4976 Senator Cloud described her amendment at the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing as an amendment seeking to protect the only Republican Congresswoman in Louisiana's Congressional Delegation. JE 29 at 13–14. Senator Cloud's amendment was the only one made during the legislative process that withstood detailed examination by both houses of the Louisiana Legislature. RE 42; JE 29 at 5-6. The only other amendment that passed in committee was offered by Representative Les Farnum of Calcasieu Parish. Trial Tr. 571-72. Representative Farnum introduced an amendment before the House and Governmental Affairs Committee that sought to make his constituents in Calcasieu Parish in one whole district. Trial Tr. 572. While the amendment advanced out of committee, it was removed from the bill after substantial bipartisan opposition prompted a floor vote to strip the amendment from S.B. 8. Trial Tr. 573-74. Particularly revealing is that S.B. 8's legislative history demonstrates how the Legislature actively sought to prevent the gross contravention of traditional redistricting principles in favor of just getting specific districts to certain BVAP concentrations. See id. (detailing the Legislature's denial of amendment to subdivide Baton Rouge into three congressional districts in favor of increasing BVAP in District 2 by some amount). 26 26

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 87 of 135 PageID #: 4977 The history of amendments to the bill do not fit the creative narrative that Mr. Hefner paints in this case to show racial predominance. In the light of all this information publicly available in the legislative record, Mr. Hefner cabined his analysis to just the final enacted version of S.B. 8 and two other maps, without seeking to get the full scope of the legislative environment that created S.B. 8. Notably, the Court said in Cooper that where political concerns are raised in defense of a map, evidence of non-compactness "loses much of its value . . . because a bizarre shape. . . can arise from a 'political motivation' as well as a racial one.” 581 U.S. at 308. Furthermore, "political and racial reasons are capable of yielding similar oddities in a district's boundaries.” Id. Here, Senator Glen Womack of Catahoula Parish, the author of S.B. 8, addressed those reasons at numerous points during the legislative session. His intent was clear and consistent. JE 31 at 121-22 (statement of Sen. Womack) (“We were ordered to draw a [second majority-Black] district, and that's what I've done. At the same time, I tried to protect Speaker Johnson, Minority Leader Scalise, and my representative Congresswoman Letlow."). He stated that he sought to draw "boundaries in th[e] bill" to "ensure that Congresswoman Letlow remains both unimpaired with any other incumbents and in a congressional district that should continue to elect a Republican to Congress for the remainder of this decade." JE 29 at 2 (Sen. Womack's Remarks Before January 16, 2024 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing). Based on this strong evidence of legislative will directed at preserving political and personal interests during the redistricting process, I would hold that Plaintiffs' circumstantial demographic evidence cannot be taken in whole or in part to satisfy its burden of showing that race predominated in the drafting of S.B. 8. b. Simulation Evidence 27 27

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 88 of 135 PageID #: 4978 Neither does Plaintiffs' simulation evidence move the needle for them toward satisfying their stringent burden of proof.. The panel majority likewise credits the marginally relevant testimony of Plaintiffs' other expert, Dr. Stephen Voss. Dr. Voss opined that simulation techniques demonstrate that (1) S.B. 8 constitutes an impermissible racial gerrymander because no other legislative imperatives would create districts in those forms; (2) the Louisiana Legislature “compromised" various “traditional redistricting criteria" in drawing S.B. 8, and; (3) there "is not a sufficiently large and compact African American population to allow [two majority-Black] districts that would conform to traditional redistricting criteria.” Trial Tr. 91. When posed with the question of S.B. 8's political goals, Dr. Voss opined that "[i]f you're not trying to draw a second Black majority district, it is very easy to protect Representative Julia Letlow." Trial Tr. 108. This commentary misses the mark entirely. Neither through simulations nor testimony, Dr. Voss did not demonstrate that it is possible to achieve all of S.B. 8's main political goals and generate extremely compact districts. On cross-examination, he admitted that he did not "explore” directing the software to prevent "double bunking" or pairing of two specific incumbents. See Trial Tr. 175 (cross-examination of Dr. Voss). 28

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 89 of 135 PageID #: 4979 As such, Dr. Voss's conclusion that only racial considerations account for District 6's shape flies in the face of his testimony that permissible considerations include regional representation, incumbency protection, and various other personally politicized considerations held by legislators in redistricting. Compare Trial Tr. 177–78 (admitting that the Legislature's rationales given ordinarily constitute valid reasons justifying a map's shape), with Trial Tr. 180 (attempting to distinguish those factors' application in this case). At most, Dr. Voss only measured or weighed two political motives at the same time: (1) “sacrificing" Congressman Graves and (2) protecting Congresswoman Letlow. Trial Tr. 110 (stating that the Legislature could have complied with these two specific goals and presented a map that is less offensive to traditional redistricting principles); Trial Tr. 111-12 (stating same). With the aid of his simulations, he argued that it would be easy to protect Congresswoman Letlow by pulling her westward into a North Louisiana district even if a second majority-Black district stretched up the Mississippi River into Northeast Louisiana. But pulling her district westward draws her closer to the population bases supporting Speaker Johnson's prominence in his district Northwest Louisiana based district. 29

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 90 of 135 PageID #: 4980 Dr. Voss neglected to address protecting the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader at the same time as protecting Congresswoman Letlow and cutting out Congressman Graves. See id. On direct, Dr. Voss stated that out of his 20,000 simulations, he did have difficulty with securing Congresswoman Letlow and Speaker Johnson without risking Majority Leader Scalise's seat. Trial Tr. 140. Then on cross examination, Dr. Voss conceded that his simulations could not consistently guarantee safe seats for Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Congresswoman Letlow. Trial Tr. 140 (conceding that many simulations jeopardized Scalise's seat and others pitted the Speaker against Letlow). Attempting to rationalize why he could not account for these valid considerations, Dr. Voss testified on redirect that some unknown number of simulations generated plans without two majority-Black districts that also achieved these political goals. This testimony, while sensible in the abstract, is nonsensical when applied to the appropriate legislative and constitutional context. Article III, § 6 of the Louisiana Constitution specifies that "the legislature shall reapportion the representation in each house as equally as practicable on the basis of population shown by the census." It is indelibly clear- seemingly to everyone except Plaintiffs' experts-that redistricting is a "root-and-branch" political matter. See Vieth, 541 U.S. at 285; Shaw, 509 U.S. at 662 (White, J., dissenting) (“[D]istricting inevitably is the expression of interest group politics."). We are tasked with evaluating legislation that is the product of the legislative body's choice resulting from a political process. For this reason, failing to evaluate a politically charged defense that frequently yields oddly shaped districts for personal and political goals of the legislators involved cannot be adequate proof that meets the demanding standard required of Plaintiffs. 30 30

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 91 of 135 PageID #: 4981 - Numerous current and former elected officials from both major political parties testified that the legislative aims raised in the 2024 session were (1) satisfying the VRA, (2) protecting senior incumbents with influential national positions, and (3) maintaining the sovereign prerogative of the legislature. See, e.g., JE 31 (Rep. Carlson) (“I can assure you this . . . we're not here today because we're caving to any kind of political pressure. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Judge Dick has said, ‘Either you do your job and draw the map, or I'll draw the map for you,' period."); Trial Tr. 47-48 (“[T]he only reason we were there was because of the other litigation; and Judge Dick saying that she if we didn't" comply with the VRA "she was going to" draw the State's map for them); Trial Tr. 81-82 (testimony of Sen. Pressly) (stating that Judge Dick would draw the maps if the Legislature did not, and would not consider political benefits to any party or persons); Trial Tr. 368. In my view, Intervenor's expert, Dr. Cory McCartan, credibly demonstrated how the limitations of Dr. Voss's purported race-conscious simulations actually failed to account for race in any meaningful manner. Trial Tr. 196-97. Dr. McCartan noted the substantial difference between stating that "a simulation that uses a tiny bit of racial information doesn't produce black districts, and the extrapolating from there to say that if you produce two black districts, it must be extreme racial gerrymandering." Trial Tr. 196–97. The panel majority avoids this potent adverse testimony by distinguishing Dr. McCartan's work with his ALARM team from the present case. Majority Op. 26–28. 31

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 92 of 135 PageID #: 4982 The panel majority's brief discussion of the limitations on Dr. Voss's simulation evidence is in tension with the nature of the pivotal inquiry that this panel was convened to undertake: To evaluate whether the Legislature and not a rebuttal witness's own team-had subjugated all traditional redistricting principles to yield a certain result-i.e., the challenged district. Dr. McCartan's testimony credibly shows that simulations cannot prove the “impossibility" that Dr. Voss sought to prove, 18 and that Dr. Voss's simulation methods added additional restraints that in turn stopped generating results which would more closely resemble the factors that the Legislature actually considered in this case. Trial Tr. 196. 18 Dr. Voss even acknowledged this, stating that in Louisiana "the number of plans that meet all [traditional redistricting principles] is probably bigger than the number of atoms in the entire universe." Trial Tr. 200-201; see also Trial Tr. 130. 32

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 93 of 135 PageID #: 4983 Setting aside the panel majority's attempts to justify the relevance of Dr. Voss's simulations, 19 the simulation evidence in this case is precisely the type of inconclusive evidence that insufficiently pits S.B. 8 in "endless beauty contests" with other potential maps the Legislature could have drawn but never would have realistically considered for a myriad of reasons other than race. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 977. Absent from the panel majority's analysis of Dr. Voss's simulation testimony was his admission that “the population tolerances required from real maps without splitting precincts," as required by Joint Rule 21, 20 "may not be achievable with a simulation method" and likely does not yield "feasible maps” in “many cases.” Trial Tr. 152-53. This admission again demonstrates how this evidence fails to encapsulate the pressing factors that the Legislature actually considered. In sum, this evidence does not satisfy Plaintiffs' burden. 19 Trial Tr. 179 (redirect examination of Dr. Voss); Majority Op. at 28. 20 The Louisiana Legislature passed Joint Rule 21 in 2021 to establish criteria that would "promote the development of constitutionally and legally acceptable redistricting plans." Joint Rule 21 (2021), https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=1238755. 33

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 94 of 135 PageID #: 4984 Through Voss's and Hefner's testimony, Plaintiffs present a simple syllogism. (A) An unconstitutional racial gerrymander occurs where traditional redistricting criteria and other permissible factors cannot account for the shape of the offending district. (B) District 6's shape in S.B. 8 cannot be explained by any permissible reapportionment factors. (C) Thus, S.B. 8 constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The glaring gap in the expert testimony results from the fact that both Voss and Hefner did not account for numerous valid justifications for District 6's shape. Thus, it is disingenuous to conclude that no permissible factors—such as protecting incumbents, 21 eliminating the Governor's political opponents, 2 connected ethno-religious networks, 23 the linkage of the District's communities via the 1-49 corridor and Red River Basin, 24 veritable cultural similarities, 25 and shared educational and health resources amongst residents of District 6, 26 among others—justify or explain District 6's shape. 22 21 Q. And so you mentioned the difference in configuration between your Bill S.B. 4 and S.B. 8. Did you have any impression about any rationale behind those different configurations? A. So during the whole time I spent in redistricting, you don't have to be a redistricting expert to know that any time a new map is drawn, it's kind of like playing musical chairs. There is going to be someone who is negatively impacted from an incumbency standpoint. And of the six congressional districts, the question was always if there was going to be a second majority black district drawn, who would be negative -- who would be most negatively impacted by this if we are -- again, we have --a new map has to be drawn. So I believe that ultimately played into what map the Legislature chose to support. - Trial Tr. 525-26; see also Trial Tr. 71 (testimony of Sen. Pressly) ("There were certainly discussions on ensuring -you know, we've got leadership in Washington. You have the Speaker of the House that's from the Fourth Congressional District and we certainly wanted to protect Speaker Johnson. The Majority Leader, we wanted to make sure that we protected, Steve Scalise. Julia Letlow is on Appropriations. That was also very important that we tried to keep her seat as well."); Trial Tr. 79 (testimony of Sen. Pressly); Trial Tr. 63 (testimony of Sen. Seabaugh) (stating same). 34

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 95 of 135 PageID #: 4985 22 See, e.g., Trial Tr. 527 (testimony of Sen. Duplessis) (“[A]s [redistricting] relates - to incumbency, there will be someone who is negatively impacted, so the choice had to be made the political decision was made to protect certain members of congress and to not protect one member of congress and it was clear that that member was going to be Congressman Garret Graves."); Trial Tr. 369-71 (testimony of Rep. Landry) (stating same); Trial Tr. 60–61 (testimony of Sen. Seabaugh) (agreeing that "protecting" Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Congresswoman Letlow “is an important [political] consideration when drawing a congressional map"). Q. Let me ask that again. Do you have an understanding if one of the current congressional incumbents was drawn out of his or her seat, so to speak, in Senate Bill 8? A. Congressman Graves was targeted in the map, correct. Q. And were you surprised that Congressman Graves was targeted in the map? A. No. Everyone -- everyone knew that. All the legislators, the media reported it. They have had a long-standing contentious relationship. Q. And when you say "they," who are you referring to? A. The Governor and Congressman Graves. Trial Tr. 369-71 (testimony of Rep. Landry). 23 Trial Tr. 466-67 (testimony of Pastor Harris). 24 Q. So in your experience as an elected official and a community leader, does Congressional District 6 in S.B. 8 reflect common communities of interest? A. Yes, it does. Q. And how so? A. Well, I think the two that come most quickly to mind would be the 1-49 corridor and the Red River. Obviously, Shreveport itself was founded by the clearing of the Red River. One of the big things that helped make this area grow was navigation thereof. We had leadership over the course of the last 50 years that's worked very hard towards trying to bring that back. You now have a series of lock and dams, five of them, between here and where the river flows into the Mississippi. That essentially mirrors the eastern side of that district. When you add to it, the connecting factor of 1-49, that essentially makes Shreveport, Mansfield, Natchitoches, all one general commuting area, all of those are connecting factors. Trial Tr. 457-58 (testimony of former Mayor Glover) (emphasis added). 25 See, e.g., Trial Tr. 467-68 (testimony of Pastor Harris) (explaining that Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Lafayette, Natchitoches, and Shreveport share far more cultural commonalities than any of those cities and New Orleans). 26 See, e.g., Trial Tr. 457-58 (testimony of Mayor Glover) (explaining that the shared Willis-Knighton, Ochsner/LSUS, and Christus medical systems within District 6 provide the bulwark of medical care to the persons of the region). 55 35

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 96 of 135 PageID #: 4986 Plaintiffs' position ignores that the record as a whole establishes that incumbency protection was the most often stated motivating factor27 behind S.B. 8. Instead, they adhere closely to a minority of voices within the Louisiana Legislature. 28 Respectfully, I strongly disagree with the panel majority's narrow reading of the conflicting demographic and statistical opinions offered to fashion its conclusion that race was "the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines." See Miller, 515 U.S. at 913. iii. Any Allegory to Hays or Application of its Outdated Rationales is Misguided 27 As evidenced by the fact that all other, more compact maps from the 2024 legislative session that also sought to comply with the VRA died in committee. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 482 (testimony of Ms. Thomas). 28 Trial Tr. 533 (testimony of Sen. Duplessis) ("I think some of the members of the Shreveport delegation may have voted against [S.B. 8], but it passed overwhelmingly."). 36

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 97 of 135 PageID #: 4987 Similarly difficult to comprehend is the panel majority's position that Hays provides this court with a helpful allegory to make its determination. In Hays I and Hays II, the district court invalidated congressional maps with two majority-minority districts as impermissible racial gerrymanders on Equal Protection grounds. See Hays I, 839 F. Supp. at 1195; see also Hays v. Louisiana, 936 F. Supp. 360, 368 (W.D. La. 1996) (Hays IV). In Hays I, the district court was confronted with an equal protection challenge to a district bearing similarities to District 6. The panel described the contested district as "an inkblot which has spread indiscriminately across the Louisiana map.” 936 F. Supp. at 364. Throughout Mr. Hefner's and Dr. Voss's testimonies, they repeatedly stated, suggested, and opined that Louisiana's configuration of minority populations today does not allow the Legislature to draw a map with two minority-Black districts without violating the Constitution. But when confronted with these assertions on cross-examination, each quickly equivocated stating that they either "can't offer an opinion on" whether "it's impossible to create a congressional plan with two majority- Black districts that perform well on traditional redistricting principles," Trial Tr. 318-320, or that the simulations could not account for other traditional redistricting principles that the Legislature considered in drafting S.B. 8, Trial Tr. 160-61. Aside from the limited testimony parroting the dated proposition derived from the Hays litigation, Plaintiffs ignore the fact that Hays does not account for drastic changes in the state's population dynamics that have occurred since the late 1990s. 29 The decennial census has occurred three times since the ink dried on the last iteration of the Hays case. 29 See supra, p. 4. 34 37

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 98 of 135 PageID #: 4988 It is for this reason, among others, that the Middle District of Louisiana rejected every formulation of the argument that the "Hays maps [were] instructive, applicable, or otherwise persuasive." See 605 F. Supp. 3d 759, 852 (M.D. La. 2022); see also id. at 834. Not only was this sentiment accepted by the Fifth Circuit, 30 but it was also accepted by the Louisiana Legislature during the 2024 redistricting session. Members of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee repeatedly rejected the assertion that Hays preempts S.B. 8's design of District 6. JE 31 at 117–18. During the testimony of Mr. Paul Hurd, counsel for Plaintiffs in this case, Representative Josh Carlson of Lafayette Parish clarified that Robinson presented the Legislature with the "complete opposite scenario than [Hays] 20 years ago." See JE 31 at 117. Despite several attempts to analogize S.B. 8 to the Hays cases, no legislator on the committee bought the argument that the State could not draw a map that included two majority-Black districts. See JE 31 at 115–18. 30 See 86 F.4th at 597 (determining that the Middle District of Louisiana's preliminary injunction holdings were not clearly erroneous). 38 38

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 99 of 135 PageID #: 4989 In response to this repudiation of Hays-like rationales to abandon S.B. 8, Plaintiffs' own counsel conceded that a congressional map with two majority-minority districts was constitutionally valid during his testimony during the 2024 legislative session. JE 31 at 118. During that same House and Governmental Affairs Committee meeting, Mr. Hurd testified that “I believe that my districting plan that I've handed in and I did it for an an example is as close as you can get to a non-racially gerrymandered district and get to two majority-minority districts, and it does." JE 31 at 31 (page 118). He further stated that “[t]here are abilities to draw a [second] compact contiguous majority-minority district" in the State of Louisiana. Id. This evidence in the record demonstrates precisely how Plaintiffs' circumstantial case fails to meet their burden. Their case is directly rooted to expert demographic and simulation testimony that merely repackages an outdated and factually unsupported thesis: that any congressional map with two majority-Black districts must be unconstitutional for the reasons derived from data and occurrences from nearly three decades ago. See Hays 1, 839 F. Supp. at 1195; Robinson, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 852. To avoid addressing these inconsistencies apparent from the record, the panel majority blends the circumstantial and direct evidence together to conclude that race played a qualitatively greater role in S.B. 8's drafting. A look at the direct evidence shows how this conclusion is unwarranted based on the totality of the legislative record. 39

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 100 of 135 PageID #: 4990 B. Direct Evidence: Legislators' Intent The panel majority states that it “acknowledges that the record includes evidence that race-neutral considerations factored into the Legislature's decisions." Majority Op. 43. However, it disregards the mountain of direct evidence showing that the political directives "could not be compromised," as each of the other proposed bills that did not achieve those goals were not seriously considered by the Legislature. See Bethune- Hill, 580 U.S. at 189. The panel majority embraces only the quotes from the legislative session that refer to the Legislature's decision to exercise its sovereign prerogative to draw its maps under the Louisiana Constitution following Robinson I. Majority Op. 41-42. It cites some language from Senator Womack, the bill's sponsor, stating that he drew the map to create two majority-Black districts as direct evidence of racial predominance. It quotes the statements from select members of the Legislature at functionally every time they mention Robinson I and the Governor's decision to place the task of drawing new electoral maps into the hands of the Legislature. 31 31 Indeed, it is clear that the district court ordered the Legislature to draw a map consisting of two majority-Black districts. As result, Plaintiffs assert that race was not only the predominant factor, but the only factor. Assuming arguendo, how then can we reconcile the assertion that race was the only factor considered when drawing S.B. 8 with the existence of several other maps, including S.B. 4 which contained even more compact districts than the adopted map? How is it possible that each proposed map, and the ensuing amendments, resulted in distinct district renderings? Neither Plaintiffs nor the majority broach this issue because they would be forced to confront what is clear: that factors beyond race, including political considerations, went into the drawing of the maps that included two majority-Black districts, including S.B. 8. 40

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 101 of 135 PageID #: 4991 These statements-either alone or crammed together with the circumstantial evidence—are insufficient to show racial predominance. The panel majority's conflation of evidence of race consciousness for the purpose of avoiding successive § 2 violations under the VRA with racial predominance is unprecedented. Its decision to do so after it acknowledges that evidence of race consciousness does not constitute evidence of racial predominance is also somewhat hard to comprehend. Majority Op. 34 (citing Shaw 1, 509 U.S. at 646; Milligan, 599 U.S. at 29). Through contextualizing the totality of the legislative record, I will show precisely why those statements referencing Robinson I do not prove racial predominance. i. Legislative Record Unlike Cooper-which turned on "direct evidence of the General Assembly's intent in creating the [challenged district], including many hours of trial testimony subject to credibility determinations," "32 this case involves limited trial testimony regarding legislative intent. Although a "statement from a state official is powerful evidence that the legislature subordinated traditional districting principles to race when it ultimately enacted a plan creating [] majority-black districts," the Court has never expressly accepted statements evincing an intent to create a majority- minority district alone as prima facie evidence that a racial gerrymander occurred. See Shaw II, 509 U.S. at 649; see also Miller, 515 U.S. at 917–19. 32 Cooper, 581 U.S. at 322. 41

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 102 of 135 PageID #: 4992 a. Incumbency Protection First and foremost, it strains credulity to relegate the potent evidence of political considerations and incumbency protection to a minor factor in the Legislature's decisions in this case. The trial record emphatically shows that S.B. 8's sponsor, Senator Womack, spoke continuously and fervently about his aims to protect certain incumbents― as well as to encase specific communities of interest within District 6. The record shows that while the Legislature considered race, it only considered it alongside other political and geographic considerations. See Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 236. The legislative record reveals that Senator Womack's personal goals necessitated the protection of certain members of Louisiana's Republican delegation in Congress. See, e.g., JE 31 at 25. On January 16, 2024, the first day of the 2024 legislative session, Senator Womack introduced his bill to the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee. See generally JE 29 (transcript of committee meeting). In his opening statement, Senator Womack averred that “[t]he boundaries in this bill I'm proposing ensure that Congresswoman Letlow remains both unimpaired with any other incumbents and in a congressional district that should continue to elect a Republican to Congress for the remainder of this decade." JE 29 at 1. He continued to assert that the bill ensured four safe Republican seats and a “Louisiana Republican presence in the United States Congress [that] has contributed tremendously to the national discourse." JE 29 at 2. He described the personal pride that resulted from the fact that the state's congressional delegation included the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. Id. He went on to state that “[] his map ensures that the two of them will have solidly Republican districts at home so that they can focus on the national leadership that we need in Washington, DC." JE 29 at 2. 42

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 103 of 135 PageID #: 4993 After the bill passed to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee for a hearing on January 18, 2024, Senator Womack stated that he sought to protect Representatives "Scalise, as well as Johnson, Letlow," and "Higgins." JE 31 at 25. Senator Womack left one "odd man out" of the delegation. He directly stated that one member of the state's Republican delegation that was not part of the “Republican team.” See id. And that one member was Congressman Garret Graves. See id. Thus, it is convincing to credit Senator Womack's unwavering assertions that these political considerations were the "primary driver[s]" of S.B. 8. See id. In that same committee hearing, the line of questioning shifted to comparing S.B. 8 to the rejected S.B. 4 map proposed by Senator Ed Price of Ascension Parish and Senator Royce Duplessis of Orleans Parish. While comparing his map to S.B. 4, Senator Womack agreed that his bill proposed districts that were less compact than S.B. 4. Id. But he attributed the less compact shape of District 4 in S.B. 8-which impacted District 6's compactness—to his attempt to comply with the VRA while also protecting Speaker Johnson and Congresswoman Letlow in North Louisiana and Majority Leader Scalise in Southeast Louisiana “[a]t the same time." See JE 31 at 22–25; 31. He continued to state that his map diverged from S.B. 4's configuration which he believed to threaten Congresswoman Letlow's chances of remaining in the House of Representatives. See JE 31 at 25-26. 43

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 104 of 135 PageID #: 4994 This is precisely because S.B. 4 proposed that District Five would constitute a more compact, second majority-minority district that enveloped Congresswoman Letlow's home precinct. 33 Trial Tr. 524 (testimony of Sen. Duplessis) ("The map that I co-authored with Senator Price, the second majority-Black district went from Baton Rouge up to northeast Louisiana, the Monroe area.”). Senator Womack agreed with the characterization that while the Legislature's Democratic caucus supported S.B. 4 for a myriad of reasons, he offered this "political map" to protect his personal political interests as well as Louisiana's standing in the national conversation. See JE 31 at 26. In an exchange with House and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gerald Beaullieu of Iberia Parish, Senator Womack explained that he sought to protect the national interests of the state's conservative majority leadership through protecting its most established leaders. JE 31 at 26–27. Senator Womack declared that “[i]t's bigger than just us," and that Louisiana's more influential members of Congress should be protected to elevate the state based on his view of the state's "poor position." JE 31 at 27. Before amendments were offered, Senator Womack and Chairman Beaullieu agreed that S.B. 8 was "able to accomplish what the [Middle District of Louisiana] has ordered through [the] map, and also . . . protect[s] the political interest[s]” raised by Senator Womack. Id. 33 Trial Tr. 524 (testimony of Sen. Duplessis) (“I recall the [population] numbers being very similar" between S.B. 4 and S.B. 8, with “[t]he main difference between the two maps. . . [being] just the [ir] geographic design[s]"). Opponents of S.B. 8 suggested that the bill does not actually seek to protect Letlow because it "“puts too many votes in the south" or Florida Parishes of District Five. JE 34 at 6 ("I applaud [Sen. Womack] for having stated that [protecting Congresswoman Letlow] is one of the objectives of this bill, but this bill doesn't do that."). These assertions were mere conjecture that: (A) proposed no other reasonable or possible alternative map and sought to risk the probable liability after a full trial in the Middle District of Louisiana; (B) did not consider the fact 44

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 105 of 135 PageID #: 4995 The panel majority minimizes the political reasoning behind the map's contours but cites this exact quote from the exchange between Chairman Beaullieu and Senator Womack as direct evidence of racial predominance. Majority Op. 43. The panel majority ignores key pieces of information from the trial record to suggest its conclusion of "racial gerrymandering,” where none exists. Regrettably, it subjugates the copious evidence of the overarching political motives in the Legislature. Respectfully, the panel majority ignores wholesale references to partisan politics and incumbent protection in its direct evidence analysis, only to throw it in as an aside before reaching its ultimate conclusion. See Majority Op. 43. It ❝acknowledge[d]" that "race-neutral considerations factored into the Legislature's decisions, such as the protection of incumbent representatives." Majority Op. 43. It then cites trial testimony from Senator Pressly and Senator Seabaugh agreeing that protecting the Republican leadership in Washington played a part in the legislative session. Id. (citing Trial Tr. 60, 71, 69). This narrow examination of the trial record stops short of corroborating whether Plaintiffs actually satisfied their burden of disentangling race from politics. Furthermore, the evidence the panel majority pieces together from trial is far from the only evidence of political motives adduced from the numerous fact witnesses serving in the Legislature. that the alternative maps introduced in the legislative session placed Congresswoman Letlow in far less favorable positions. See Trial Tr. 560 (testimony of Commissioner Lewis) (stating that S.B. 4 and H.B. 5 placed Congresswoman Letlow in the second majority-Black district). 45 45

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 106 of 135 PageID #: 4996 Take for instance the trial testimony of Representative Mandie Landry of Orleans Parish, who testified to the "fear among Republicans that if they" failed to pass a map before the Robinson I trial “that the [Middle District of Louisiana] would draw one that wouldn't be as politically advantageous for them." Trial Tr. 367–68. She then said the quiet part out loud that "everyone knew that" Governor Landry "wanted Congressman Graves out." Trial Tr. 370. Her unrefuted testimony demonstrated that S.B. 8 was "the Governor's bill" and that the Republican delegation's leadership supported it. See id. Representative Landry also noted that there were "a couple dozen bills [addressing] other issues that we understood were the Governor's bills," each tracking an item addressed in the Governor's call for a special session. 34 Trial Tr. 371 (explaining that the Legislature was "also discussing the [Louisiana] Supreme Court maps” and a bill to abolish the jungle primary system to move to "closed primaries" limited to registered party voters); see also JE 8 at 1-2 (calling for the Legislature to convene to draft new legislation and amendments relative to the election code, Louisiana Supreme Court districts, Congressional districts). 34 The relevance of Governor Landry's involvement in S.B. 8 cannot be overstated and is not even mentioned in a footnote by the majority. The best evidence of his involvement can be gleaned from his remarks to the Legislature at the opening of the 2024 Extraordinary Legislative Session. To assert that the Louisiana Legislature confronted this redistricting issue solely at the behest of the district court is plainly unsupported based on the Governor's statements and contradicts the language of Article III, § 6 of the Louisiana Constitution which states that “the legislature shall reapportion the representation in each house as equally as practicable on the basis of population shown by the census." Governor Landry—a lawyer, a former Congressman of District 3, and the former Attorney General of Louisiana who "did everything [he] could to dispose of [the Robinson] litigation," and who was well aware of the redistricting process-seized the initiative and called upon the Legislature to exercise its sovereign prerogative (and the legislative obligation) to draw the map. During his remarks, when he stated that the district court handed down an order, he specified that the order was for the Legislature to “perform our job... our job that our own laws direct us to complete, and our job that 46 46

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 107 of 135 PageID #: 4997 From Representative Landry's time in the House Chamber during prior legislative sessions and the 2024 legislative session, she noted "hundreds" of discussions with House Republicans that made clear that any legislation that contradicted the political dynamics around S.B. 8 were non- starters. Trial Tr. 375. Representative Landry testified that these political discussions "had been going on since the Governor was elected among us and [in] the media" and "increased [in frequency] as we got closer to [the Governor's] inauguration.” Trial Tr. 370-71. our individual oaths promise we would perform." JE 35 at 10. He continued by asserting that "[w]e do not need a federal judge to do for us what the people of Louisiana have elected you to do for them. You are the voice of the people, and it is time that you use that voice. The people have sent us here to solve problems, not to exacerbate them, to heal divisions, not to widen them.” JE 35 at 11. 47

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 108 of 135 PageID #: 4998 Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis also testified at trial as to the overarching, dominant political objectives of the 2024 legislative redistricting session. With years of experience working in the state capitol as a legislative aide, lobbyist, and elected official, he provided ample evidence of what transpired during the 2024 legislative session. Trial Tr. 562 (stating that he “knew the entire [Senate] committee” because he "had worked with them" in the Legislature for "over eight years”). Commissioner Lewis explained that there were two other redistricting maps that did not advance to the full floor for votes: S.B. 4, sponsored by Senators Price and Duplessis, and H.B. 5, sponsored by Representative Marcelle. Trial Tr. 560. He stated that both of those maps placed Congresswoman Letlow in the second majority-Black congressional district, with Congressman Graves in a safe Republican seat. See Trial Tr. 560 ("Q. How many majority black districts were in the map[s]? A. Two. Q. Who currently represents those districts? A. It would be Congressman Carter and Congresswoman Letlow."); Trial Tr. 524 (“The main difference between the two maps ... was just the geographic design of the map."). Commissioner Lewis recounted that he testified in favor of S.B. 4 before the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee on January 16, 2024. Trial Tr. 560-61. He testified that S.B. 4 did not advance out of committee on that day. Trial Tr. 563. He stated that the vote "came down on party lines," and that “[a]ll Republicans voted against it." Trial Tr. 563. From this testimony, it is safe to say that more compact bills that included two majority-Black districts but did not protect the right Republican incumbents were effectively dead on arrival. A clear example of this sentiment in action in the legislative record comes from Representative Marcelle's statements in front of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2024. Less than twenty- 48 48

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 109 of 135 PageID #: 4999 four hours after S.B. 4 was shot down in committee on purely partisan lines, Representative Marcelle voluntarily pulled H.B. 5 from consideration. She stated that her reasons for doing so were based on "knowing what the politics are at play." JE 37 at 6. She further stated that any "[b]ill that was very similar” to H.B. 5 and S.B. 4 would “probably never make it to the floor." JE 37 at 6. 35 Senator Duplessis's trial testimony provides even more context dating back to the initial 2022 legislative redistricting session. As a member of the House and Governmental Affairs for that session, Senator Duplessis "traveled for months across the state and conducted roadshows and listened to the community" to assess what they would like to see in the redistricting process.³ Trial Tr. 513-14. He witnessed countless perspectives from voters across the state that called for fair maps that would reflect the state's population and comply with the VRA. See Trial Tr. 515. Recalling the session that followed the roadshow process, Senator Duplessis explained that legislation featuring an electoral map that included two majority-Black districts were "all voted down" in committee. Trial Tr. 515. In spite of the populace's clear expression for the Legislature to pass fair maps 36 the Legislature ultimately chose H.B. 1. He continued to explain 35 See, e.g., Power Coalition, Legislative Redistricting Roadshow Comes to Alexandria on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, (Nov. 9, 2021), https://powercoalition.org/legislative-redistricting-roadshow-comes-to-alexandria-on- tuesday-november-9-2021/. 36 Indeed, the Legislature's deliberative process was informed by community perspectives that demonstrated the unity of interests behind an electoral map that included two majority-Black districts. This sharply contrasts with the situation in Vera. See 861 F. Supp. at 1334 ("The final result seems not one in which the people select their representatives, but in which the representatives have selected the people."). Members of both major political parties in the Legislature attended the nearly dozen roadshows across the state and heard this ubiquitous message. 49 49

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 110 of 135 PageID #: 5000 that the Legislature convened for a special redistricting session in June 2022 after the preliminary injunction decision in Robinson I. Trial Tr. 517. He testified that several bills introduced in that special session would have complied with the VRA as ordered by the Middle District of Louisiana and adhered to traditional districting principles. Trial Tr. 518. Ultimately, none were adopted in that session for the same reasons that S.B. 4 and H.B. 5 failed; they were not supported by the Governor and the Republican delegation's leadership. Senator Duplessis further contended that the Governor's influence over S.B. 8 led to its quick passage in the Legislature. Trial Tr. 525. Noting the Governor's position "coming off an election with no runoff," Senator Duplessis testified that “[the Governor's] support would have a lot of influence on what does and doesn't get passed." Trial Tr. 525. He stated that after Senator Womack's bill was filed "it became clear that that was the map that Governor Landry would support." Id. He continued to state that one does not "have to be a redistricting expert to know that any time a new map is drawn," that “[t]here is going to be someone who is negatively impacted from an incumbency standpoint." Id. On the floor of the Legislature during the 2024 session, Senator Duplessis noted that Senators Womack and Stine consistently talked about “the importance of protecting certain elected officials." JE 30 at 20; Trial Tr. 527. When questioned about this statement at trial, he stated that "the political decision was made to protect certain members of Congress and to not protect one member of Congress and that it was clear that that member was going to be Congressman Garret Graves." Trial Tr. 527. After the floor was open to amendments to S.B. 8 in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Womack and Representative Michael Johnson of Rapides Parish noted that S.B. 8 was not drafted "in a 50

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 111 of 135 PageID #: 5001 vacuum" and that the congressional map would affect people in Senator Womack's own State Senate district. JE 31 at 45–46. Senator Womack accepted that while some Republicans may give him "a lot of heat" for the decision to draw a map that included two majority-minority districts, he agreed with Representative Johnson that S.B. 8 “present[s] a map that achieves all the necessary requirements [of a valid map] and . . . [is] the best instrument that [he] could come up with." JE 31 at 46. Thus, the legislative record in this case reveals the true "dominant and controlling" factors driving the adopted map's boundaries. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 913One such factor was the need to protect every member of Louisiana's Republican delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives except for Congressman Graves. That was the criterion that "could not be compromised." See Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 189 (quotation omitted). On this point, not even S.B. 8's detractors—either at trial or during the legislative session-attempted to debunk or attack this offered rationale. See Trial Tr. 71 (testimony of Sen. Pressly) ("There were certainly discussions [in the Republican Delegation] on ensuring” that Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Congresswoman Letlow were protected); Trial Tr. 76-77 (agreeing that a “Republican would be likely to lose in a second majority- Black district" like the other maps proposed in the Legislature); Trial Tr. 61 (testimony of Sen. Seabaugh). With all of this context, it becomes indelibly clear that Governor Landry's and the Republican delegation's decisions to protect Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Congresswoman Letlow and cut out Congressman Graves shows that political motivations "could not be compromised" during the redistricting process. See Bethune- Hill, 580 U.S. at 189. Thus, the overwhelming evidence of the goal of incumbency protection in the legislative record shows that Plaintiffs have 51

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 112 of 135 PageID #: 5002 failed to meet their burden to prove racial predominance in this "mixed motive" case, as required by Supreme Court precedent. 52 52

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 113 of 135 PageID #: 5003 b. Other Traditional Redistricting Principles Respected in S.B. 8 The evidence in the record as to the communities of interest contained within S.B. 8 substantially undermines the assertion that race predominated in the bill's drafting. The Supreme Court has warned that “where the State assumes from a group of voters' race that they ‘think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls,' it engages in racial stereotyping at odds with equal protection mandates." Miller, 515 U.S. at 920. Notably, this record is flush with community of interest evidence that rebuts the allegations of racial stereotyping. See Theriot, 185 F.3d at 485. There are tangible communities of interest spanning District 6. The panel majority cannot plausibly conclude that the evidence compels a determination that there are no tangible communities of interest contained in District 6. Unlike in Miller in which the Court was presented with a comprehensive report illustrating the fractured political, social, and economic interests within the district's Black population, this court was only presented with trial testimony subject to credibility determinations. Miller, 515 U.S. at 919. 53 53

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 114 of 135 PageID #: 5004 "A district may lack compactness or contiguity-due, for example, to geographic or demographic reasons-yet still serve the traditional districting goal of joining communities of interest." Cromartie I, 526 U.S. at 555 n. (Stevens, J., concurring). A determination that race played a predominant role-over incumbency protection, communities of interest, compactness, and contiguity—is crucial to Plaintiffs' case. However, the Plaintiffs rely on this court solving every conflict of fact in their favor and accepting their inferences in order to hold that they have satisfied their burden of proof. The Court has advised courts that “[w]here there are such conflicting inferences one group of them cannot, be[] labeled as 'prima facie proof."" Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 57 (1964). If one inference were to be "treated as conclusive on the fact finder," it would "deprive him of his responsibility to choose among disputed inferences. And this is true whether the conflicting inferences are drawn from evidence offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant or by both.” Id. The record does not support the panel majority's view that Plaintiffs' evidence has established a prima facie case compelling this panel, despite conflicting inferences which could be drawn from that evidence, to hold that the State drew S.B. 8 solely on the basis of race. See id. 54 54

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 115 of 135 PageID #: 5005 The panel majority clings to rationales from Hays, averring that its descriptions of cultural divides are still true today. It bears repeating that― considering the long passage of time and trends of cultural integration over the last few decades-it is unreasonable and untenable for this court to conclude "much of the local appraisal analysis from Hays I remains relevant to an analysis of S.B.8." See Majority Op. at 53–54. Citing the map's divisions of the Acadiana region, the majority contends that S.B. 8 "fails to take into account Louisiana's diverse cultural, religious, and social landscape in any meaningful way." Majority Op. 55 n.11. But the panel majority's narrow view rooted from its cursory consultation of select cultural historical sources and Hays sharply conflicts with decades of electoral history. 55 55

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 116 of 135 PageID #: 5006 Several witnesses that testified in this case stated that Louisiana's political subdivisions and geographical and cultural hotspots are routinely split in different electoral districts. Instead of evaluating it based on the evidence in this case, the panel majority condemns S.B. 8 for its multiple divisions of the "strong cultural and ethnic groups" in the Acadiana area. 37 At first glance, the panel majority's aim is noble and sensible. But the complexity of relationships between populations within the Acadiana area, as well as its geographic composition, do not promote one unitary community of interest. In 1971, the Louisiana Legislature passed a resolution officially recognizing and protecting the "traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland." ." 38 The Acadiana Delegation in the Legislature provides the following map of Acadiana and segments the often referred- to Cajun Heartland (in darker red) from the rest of Acadiana. 3 39 37 The panel majority also paints with a broad brush to describe the region, but its high-level discussion assumes that two distinctive cultures that have learned how to live harmoniously in a large shared geographic region morphs those distinctive communities into a homogenous, unitary community of interest. Cajun and Creole populations have different histories, languages, food, and music. In my view, the intriguing relationship between Cajuns and Creoles may lend itself to noting that they do not neatly fit into a unitary community of interest. Somewhat respecting this notion, the Legislature has consistently segmented the Acadiana area into multiple congressional districts over the past few decades. 38 Acadiana Legislative Delegation, (last visited April 29, 2024), https://house.louisiana.gov/acadiana/#:~:text=Acadiana%20often%20is%20applied%20 only, sometimes%20also%20Evangeline%20and%20St. 39 Id. ("Acadiana often is applied only to Lafayette Parish and several neighboring parishes, usually Acadia, Iberia, St. Landry, St. Martin, and Vermilion parishes, and sometimes also Evandeling and St. Mary; this eight-parish area, however, is actually the 'Cajun Heartland, USA' district, which makes up only about a third of the entire Acadiana region."). 56 56

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 117 of 135 PageID #: 5007 Under the delegation's definition, the Acadiana parishes contain portions of three of the state's five major population centers: Lake Charles, Lafayette, and the outskirts of Baton Rouge. 40 Acadiana stretches from the marsh lands in St. Mary Parish all the way up to Avoyelles Parish in the Red River Basin. Importantly, the majority ignores the fact that the twenty-two parishes that lie within this corner of the state have been segmented into multiple single-member congressional districts since the 1970s. 41 The following map demonstrates the congressional districts for the majority of the 1970s. Notably it splits Acadiana into three congressional districts: 40 See id. 41 Even if the panel majority restricts its description of Acadiana into the "Cajun Heartland" parishes, see supra n.40, it also cannot account for the fact these have been routinely split into multiple congressional districts for decades. The following maps are retrieved from shapefile data compiled and organized by professors from the University of California at Los Angeles. Jeffrey B. Lewis, Brandon DeVine, Lincoln Pitcher, & Kenneth C. Martis, Digital Boundary Definitions of United States Congressional Districts, 1789-2012 (2013) (datafile and code book generating district overlays), https://cdmaps.polisci.ucla.edu. 57

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 118 of 135 PageID #: 5008 LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI Jackson Haftesb Like Chats Lafayeth Gulfport b New Continuing to the 1980s, the Legislature continued to segment Acadiana for another decade: LOUISIANA 58 596 MISSISSIPPI Jackson Hab Gupon

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 119 of 135 PageID #: 5009 Even the congressional districts drawn by the Hays panel were no different on this front, also splitting up the Acadiana area into multiple districts:42 MANA Abs andis MISSISSIPPI Jackson Habebe Eaton Ro Charles Lafayette Guport New Orle Neither did the congressional districts enacted after the turn of the millennium keep Acadiana whole: 43 MISSISSIPPI Mow Jackson Akinanda Habbu aton Ro Chalm Lafayetle Guport h New Cri 42 936 F. Supp. 360, 372 (W.D. La. 1996) (“The State of Louisiana is directed to implement the redistricting plan drawn by this court and ordered implemented in Hays II.”). The judicially created map split Acadiana into districts 3, 5, 6, and 7. 43 See Act 10, H.B. 2 (2001) (splitting Acadiana into four congressional districts). 59 59

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 120 of 135 PageID #: 5010 Another decade passes, and the Legislature carves up Acadiana once more. The Legislature continued this trend after the 2010 census. The electoral map enacted in 201144 likewise split Acadiana into four districts: Uits Satire Uncoln Bl Jackson Rapides Fangers Bard Al Catchat La Salk Lond Fukk Poda Calcas Jun Cavia 2 M Labelle Cancan WCam FD We EF T Ugl Temary If the majority's formulation is correct, then none of these maps, including H.B. 1 (depicted below), 45 had adequately accounted for Louisiana's diverse cultural landscape in any meaningful way. 44 Act 2, H.B. 6 (2011) (same). 45 districts). Act 5, H.B. 1 (2022) (dividing Acadiana into four single-member congressional 60 60

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 121 of 135 PageID #: 5011 Dr Seb Render Engele Scan Avay hand Ponte C Laney Carrel L.Carol F Tersal St. St. Tammany Flag Thus, dating back decades, it is safe to say Acadiana has been a community that is “not unaccustomed to splitting” in order to achieve a variety of other goals in Congressional reapportionment. Cf. Theriot, 185 F.3d at 483; Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 966 F. Supp. 1435, 1444 (E.D. La. 1997). For this reason, S.B. 8's division of Acadiana cannot persuasively be interpreted to prove that race predominated in its drafting. See H.B. 1, Act 5 (2022) (dividing the Acadiana region into four Congressional districts); H.B. 6, Act 2 (2011) (doing the same). Absent from the majority's analysis is discussion of precedent making clear that an electoral map that splits a community of interest is not strong evidence of racial predominance if the community is accustomed to being split into multiple districts. Cf. Theriot, 185 F.3d at 485. Furthermore, the legislative record in this case shows that the Legislature considered a number of other communities of interest and apportioned them appropriately into single-member districts.4 46 46 See also supra notes 21-26. 61

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 122 of 135 PageID #: 5012 Here is what the record demonstrates as to the communities of interest factor. In testimony before the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Womack and numerous other members of the Louisiana House of Representatives noted that District 6 in S.B. 8 contained numerous communities of interest. Representative Larvadain of Rapides Parish noted that District 6 respected regional education and employment interests, noting that Rapides area residents lie within a "community of interest with Natchitoches and Caddo" parishes. JE 31 at 21. He further noted that residents of Point Coupee Parish in District 6, which lies almost midway between Opelousas and Baton Rouge, utilize health systems services and hospitals in Saint Landry Parish's more densely populated seat of Opelousas. JE 31 at 21-22. As another note, S.B. 8's District 4 contains the two major military bases in the state under the watch of the most powerful member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker Johnson. Trial Tr. 384 (noting that assets like military bases, along with colleges or universities are information that legislators and electoral demographers consider as communities of interest). The majority does not grapple with any of this. Instead, it clings tightly to Mr. Hefner's dot density map and testimony on the contours of the district's lines in certain areas instead of truly examining whether Plaintiffs had disentangled politics and race to prove that the latter drove District 6's lines. See Cromartie I, 526 U.S. at 546; Theriot, 185 F.3d at 486 ("Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the inclusion or exclusion of communities was inexorably tied to issues of incumbency."). Thus, the majority cannot convincingly hold that Plaintiffs have met their burden of debunking the State's “political motivation" defense. 62

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 123 of 135 PageID #: 5013 III. Strict Scrutiny In my view, the panel majority adopts an incomplete interpretation of the legislative record and inconsistent circumstantial evidence to hold that S.B. 8 constitutes a racial gerrymander. Following that determination, the panel majority asserts that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny. Notwithstanding my writings above that demonstrate that S.B. 8 does not constitute an impermissible racial gerrymander, I now explain how the majority's second major determination also lacks a substantial basis in the record. A. Compliance with the VRA is a Compelling State Interest To survive an equal protection challenge to an election redistricting plan which considers race as a factor, the state must show that its redistricting plan was enacted in pursuit of a compelling state interest and that the plan's boundaries are narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 958–59. In my view, it is clear that the State has satisfied its burden in demonstrating that District 6's boundaries in S.B. 8 were created pursuant to a compelling state interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. It is axiomatic that "compliance with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutes a compelling governmental interest." See Clark v. Calhoun Cnty., 88 F.3d 1393, 1405 (5th Cir. 1996); Cooper, 581 U.S. at 301. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has consistently made clear that “a State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process." Brnovich v. Dem. Nat'l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2347 (2021) (quoting Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the face of this, Plaintiffs argue that compliance with the VRA is not a compelling governmental interest based on this record. Plaintiffs 63 63

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 124 of 135 PageID #: 5014 categorize the State's decision to settle the Robinson matter by calling a special session to draw new maps as "pretrial court-watching" insufficient to constitute "a compelling interest to justify race-based line drawing." Plaintiffs' Br. 14. They contend that the State's reliance on the VRA is based on the Attorney General's "calculated guess" on how the Middle District would rule, rather than an independent analysis of H.B. 1's performance under the VRA. Plaintiffs point to the Attorney General's responses to questioning during an information session before the 2024 Legislative Session formally opened in the morning hours of January 16, 2024, to support the theory that the Legislature did not truly consider VRA compliance in deciding to promulgate S.B. 8. Plaintiffs' Br. 15. Alternatively, they assert that the VRA is merely a "post-hoc justification []" offered by the State to avoid liability. See Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 190. None of these arguments are persuasive. The State has pointed to a compelling state interest recognized by binding Supreme Court precedent. See Cooper, 581 U.S. at 292, 301; Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 915. I now proceed to address narrow tailoring as the State has sufficiently established a strong basis in evidence underlying its redistricting decisions. B. Strong Basis In Evidence The State argues that it had good reasons to believe that it had to draw a majority-minority district to avoid liability for vote dilution under § 2 of the VRA. See Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254, 278 (2015) (holding that legislators "may have a strong basis in evidence to use racial classifications in order to comply with a statute when they have good reasons to believe such use is required, even if a court does not find that the actions were necessary for statutory compliance"); Cooper, 581 U.S. at 287 ("If a State has good reason to think that all three of these [Gingles] conditions are met, then so too it has good reason to believe that § 2 64

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 125 of 135 PageID #: 5015 requires drawing a majority-minority district. But if not, then not."). Moreover, the Court has emphasized that as part of the strict scrutiny inquiry "a court's analysis of the narrow tailoring requirement insists only that the legislature have a 'strong basis in evidence' in support of the (race- based) choice that it has made." Ala. Legis. Black Caucus, 575 U.S. at 278. In essence, the Court has indicated that the State must establish a strong basis in evidence for concluding that the threshold Gingles conditions for § 2 liability are present, namely: First, "that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute majority in a single member district"; second, "that it is politically cohesive"; and third, "that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Vera, 517 U.S. at 978 (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50–51, (1986)) (internal citation omitted). The majority errs in asserting that the State has not met its burden here. See Majority Op. at 51. Markedly, the majority has incorrectly articulated the State's burden as requiring it to show that the contested district, District 6, satisfies the first Gingles factor. The Supreme Court has already directed that the first Gingles condition "refers to the compactness of the minority population [in the state], not to the compactness of the contested district." League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 433 (2006) ("LULAC”) (quoting Vera, 517 U.S. at 997 (Kennedy, J., concurring))). As such, the State's actual burden is to show that the first Gingles condition-the Black population is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district is present so as to establish that it had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that its remedial action to draw a new map was required. 65

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 126 of 135 PageID #: 5016 Cooper, 581 U.S. at 287; Vera, 517 U.S. at 978. "If a State has good reason to think that all the Gingles preconditions are met, then so too it has good reason to believe that § 2 requires drawing a majority-minority district." Cooper, 581 U.S. at 302 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Black population's numerosity and reasonable compactness within the state must first be established as required by Gingles. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 301; Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 19 (2023). To satisfy the first Gingles precondition, plaintiffs often submit illustrative maps to establish reasonable compactness for purposes of the first Gingles requirement. Milligan, 599 U.S. at 33 ("Plaintiffs adduced at least one illustrative map that comported with our precedents. They were required to do no more to satisfy the first step of Gingles.”). As such, courts evaluate whether the illustrative plans demonstrate reasonable compactness when viewed through the lens of “traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries." LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433 (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the first Gingles precondition, in Robinson I, the Middle District of Louisiana found both (1) that Black voters could constitute a majority in a second district in Louisiana and (2) that a second district could be reasonably configured in the state. Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 820-31; see Milligan, 599 U.S. at 19. Following Milligan's lead, the Robinson I court analyzed example districting maps that Louisiana could enact-each of which contained two majority-Black districts that comported with traditional districting criteria-to conclude that a second majority-minority district could be formulated from Louisiana's demographics. Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 822-31; see Milligan, 599 U.S. at 20. Because the Middle District of Louisiana had thoroughly conducted a Gingles analysis, the State had good reasons to believe (1) that the Gingles 99 66

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 127 of 135 PageID #: 5017 threshold conditions for § 2 liability were all present and (2) that it was conceivable to draw two majority-minority congressional districts that satisfy the first prong of Gingles while adhering to traditional redistricting principles. The Robinson I court's thorough analysis that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail on the merits of their §2 claim provided powerful evidence and analysis supporting the State's strong basis in evidence claim that the VRA requires two majority-Black districts. Cf. Wisconsin Legis. v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 595 U.S. 398, 403 (2022) (holding that the Governor failed to carry his burden because he "provided almost no other evidence or analysis supporting his claim that the VRA required the seven majority-black districts that he drew"). The majority points to no precedent requiring the State to reestablish or embark on an independent inquiry regarding the numerosity and reasonable compactness of Louisiana's Black population after an Article III judge has already carefully evaluated that evidence in a preliminary injunction proceeding. Id. at 410 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) ("The Court points to no precedent requiring a court conducting a malapportionment analysis to embark on an independent inquiry into matters that the parties have conceded or not contested, like the Gingles preconditions here."). Notably, both the majority and the Robinson I court would agree that where the record reflects that the Black population is dispersed then § 2 does not require a majority-minority district. Compare 605 F. Supp. 3d at 826 (“If the minority population is too dispersed to create a reasonably configured majority-minority district, [§ 2] does not require such a district.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), with Majority Op. at 51 ("The record reflects that, outside of southeast Louisiana, the Black population is dispersed."). But it was the Robinson I court that was provided with an extensive record-particularly extensive for a preliminary 67

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 128 of 135 PageID #: 5018 injunction proceeding-regarding the numerosity and geographic compactness of Louisiana's Black population. And this court should not deconstruct or revise that finding. Despite the majority's suggestion that the "[instant] record reflects that, outside of southeast Louisiana, the Black population is dispersed," this record makes no such certitude. See Majority Op. at 51. Likewise, the Supreme Court has been clear that compactness in the equal protection context, "which concerns the shape or boundaries of a district, differs from § 2 compactness, which concerns a minority group's compactness." LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433 (quoting Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 111 (1997)). “In the equal protection context, compactness focuses on the contours of district lines to determine whether race was the predominant factor in drawing those lines." Id. (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 916-17). The inquiry under § 2 is whether “the minority group is geographically compact.” Id. (quoting Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 916) (internal quotation marks omitted). The instant case is about an asserted equal protection violation. The fully developed trial record substantiates District 6's compactness as it relates to traditional redistricting factors. Conversely, Robinson I and its associated record are about a vote dilution violation. In essence, the record in Robinson I is replete with evidence concerning the inquiry under § 2 into whether the minority group is geographically compact. Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 826. The Robinson I court correctly determined that "[t]he relevant question is whether the population is sufficiently compact to make up a second majority-minority congressional district in a certain area of the state." Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 826. And that is the determination that the Middle District of Louisiana made. Equipped with expert testimony regarding the numerosity and reasonable compactness of the Black 88 68

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 129 of 135 PageID #: 5019 population in Louisiana, the Robinson I court made a finding that the "Black population in Louisiana is heterogeneously distributed." 605 F. Supp. 3d at 826. In Robinson I, the court determined that “[p]laintiffs have demonstrated that they are substantially likely to prove that Black voters are sufficiently 'geographically compact' to constitute a majority in a second congressional district." Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 822. It would be unreasoned and inappropriate for this court-without the benefit of a record relevant to vote dilution—to now post hoc suggest that Black voters are not sufficiently "geographically compact" and thus overrule the Robinson I court's finding. After determining that the previously enacted redistricting plan, H.B. 1, likely violated § 2, the Middle District of Louisiana did not impose a particular map or course of action on the State. Id. at 857 ("The State . . . is not required to [use one of plaintiffs' illustrative plans], nor must it ‘draw the precise compact district that a court would impose in a successful § 2 challenge.""). Rather, the Robinson I court highlighted that the State retained "broad discretion in drawing districts to comply with the mandate of § 2." Id. (quoting Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 917 n.9). It emphasized the State's numerous options for a path forward, namely that the State could "elect to use one of Plaintiffs' illustrative plans" or "adopt its own remedial map." The State chose the latter. At the same time, the Robinson I court cautioned the State to respect its own traditional districting principles and to remain cognizant of the reasonableness of its fears and efforts to avoid § 2 liability. Id. (quoting Vera, 517 U.S. at 978). Although District 6 was not present in any of the illustrative maps submitted to satisfy the first Gingles factor in Robinson I, the State has shown that as a remedial plan District 6 is reasonably compact when viewed through the lens of “traditional districting principles such as maintaining 69 69

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 130 of 135 PageID #: 5020 communities of interest and traditional boundaries." LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433 (internal quotation marks omitted). 47 Recall that a “§ 2 district that is reasonably compact and regular, taking into account traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries, may pass strict scrutiny without having to defeat rival compact districts designed by plaintiffs' experts in endless beauty contests." Vera, 517 U.S. at 977. Make no mistake-the "special session [called by Governor Landry] was convened as a direct result of [] litigation, Robinson v. Landry." JE36 at 6. Certainly, some state legislators colloquially characterized the genesis of the special session by expressing that "we've been ordered by the court that we draw congressional district with two minority districts." JE36 at 4 (Sen. Ed Price). But, while some state legislators conversationally expressed that "we are now in 2024 trying to resolve this matter at the direction of the court," all legislators formally and collectively understood the redistricting process to have begun in the fall of 2021 "where [the Legislature] began [the] process going to every corner of this state on the roadshow, northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, central Louisiana, all throughout this state.” JE36 at 4 (Sen. Royce Duplessis). Most of these senators—with the exception of two newly elected senators—were involved in the redistricting process when it began more than two years before the January 2024 special session, in the fall of 2021. Trial Tr. 545 (noting that except for only two newly-elected state senators to the 2024 Legislature, "the rest of the Senate serv[ed] for the full duration of the redistricting process following the 2020 census"). 47 See supra Part II.A-B. 770

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 131 of 135 PageID #: 5021 As mentioned above, the testimony and evidence show that the legislators gave careful thought when identifying and assessing communities of interest; strategizing incumbency protection; calculating how often maps split parishes, census places (or municipalities), and landmarks, and measuring and comparing compactness scores. Although the impetus for the special session was litigation, the record confirms that the legislators considered traditional redistricting criteria in drawing and amending the maps. During the January 2024 special session, the legislators continuously cited "redistricting criteria, including those embodied in the Legislature's Joint Rule 21" as foremost in their minds while promulgating, drafting, and voting on S.B. 8.48 As discussed, the record illustrates that the legislators balanced all the relevant principles, including those described in Joint Rule 21, without letting any single factor dominate their redistricting process. To further imprint that the State had a strong basis in evidence for finding that the Gingles preconditions for § 2 liability were present, I examine the remainder of the Gingles factors. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 978. Louisiana electoral history provided evidence to support the remaining Gingles prerequisites. The second Gingles factor asks whether Black voters are "politically cohesive." The court determines whether Black voters 48 Moreover, Patricia Lowrey-Dufour, Senior Legislative Analyst to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, presented an oral "101" orientation about the redistricting process. Specifically, she provided an overview of redistricting terms, concepts, and law, redistricting criteria, the 2020 census population and population trends, malapportionment statistics, and illustrative maps. Moreover, Ms. Lowrey-Dufour directed legislators to "a plethora of resources available on the redistricting website of the legislature.” In other words, the confection of these redistricting plans did not occur in a vacuum. S.B. 8 was adopted as part of a process that began with the decennial and in which legislators were immensely informed of their duties and responsibilities. JE28 at 3- 11. 71 14

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 132 of 135 PageID #: 5022 usually support the same candidate in elections irrespective of the contested district. The third Gingles factor requires an inquiry into whether White voters in Louisiana vote “sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat [Black voters'] preferred candidate." Again, the court makes this determination unrelatedly of the contested district. Relying on a record that established racially polarized voting patterns in the state of Louisiana, the State had a strong basis in evidence for finding that the second and third Gingles factors were present. Further, the Middle District of Louisiana court analyzed "the Senate Factors... and then turned to the proportionality issue." Robinson I, 605 F. Supp. at 844. By evaluating the Senate Factors, 49 the Robinson | court determined that the plaintiffs had “established that they are substantially likely to prevail in showing that the totality of the circumstances weighs in their favor." 605 F. Supp. at 844-51. Lastly, when evaluating the proportionality factor, the Middle District of Louisiana concluded that the "Black representation under the enacted plan is not proportional to the Black share of population in Louisiana . . . Although Black Louisianans make up 33.13% of the total population and 31.25% of the voting age population, they comprise a majority in only 17% of Louisiana's congressional districts." Id. at 851. Thus, each of the three Gingles prerequisites was sufficiently established. In sum, not only did the State have a strong basis in evidence for believing that it needed a majority-minority district in order to avoid liability under § 2 but-in drafting the remedial plan-it also ensured that its 49 The Senate Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee-which accompanied the 1982 amendments to the VRA-specifies factors ("Senate Factors") that are typically relevant to a § 2 claim and elaborate on the proof required to establish § 2 violations. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 43-44. 72

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 133 of 135 PageID #: 5023 proposed redistricting plan met the traditional redistricting criteria and was geographically compact so as to not offend the VRA. See Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 916–17 (rejecting the argument that "once a legislature has a strong basis in evidence for concluding that a § 2 violation exists in the State, it may draw a majority-minority district anywhere, even if the district is in no way coincident with the compact Gingles district”). Thus, District 6, as drawn, is "narrowly tailored." Shaw II recognizes that: (1) the State may not draw a majority- minority district "anywhere [in the state] if there is a strong basis in evidence for concluding that a § 2 violation exists somewhere in the State and (2) "once a violation of the statute is shown[,] States retain broad discretion in drawing districts to comply with the mandate of § 2.” Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 901, 917 n.9. Citing Shaw II, the Robinson I court made no determination that a district should be drawn just anywhere in the state. 605 F. Supp. 3d at 857-58. Nor did the State seek to embark on such an endeavor. Rather, the Robinson I court afforded the State "a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet [applicable federal legal] 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 (1978) (citing Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 85 (1966)). Because the Supreme Court has emphasized "[t]ime and again" that "reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body, rather than of a federal court," this three-judge panel should not usurp the State's efforts to narrowly tailor its reapportionment scheme. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 156 (1993). Under the Burns rule, "a State's freedom of choice to devise substitutes [or remedial plans] for an apportionment plan [that was] found unconstitutional . . . should not be restricted beyond the clear commands 73

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 134 of 135 PageID #: 5024 of the Equal Protection Clause." Lipscomb, 437 U.S. at 536–37; Burns, 384 U.S. at 85. Far from a map "drawn anywhere" in the state simply because "there is a strong basis in evidence for concluding that a § 2 violation exists somewhere in the State," District 6 reasonably remedies potential § 2 violations because (1) the Black population was shown to be "geographically compact" to establish § 2 liability, Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, and (2) District 6 complies with “traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions," See Miller, 515 U.S. at 919. Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 900. For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that because S.B. 8 is narrowly tailored to further the State's compelling interests in complying with § 2 of the VRA, it survives strict scrutiny and is therefore constitutional. IV. Conclusion The panel's mandate in this case was clear: Plaintiffs needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that race predominated in the drawing of the district lines found in S.B. 8. The panel majority, relying on decades- old case law with antiquated observations, and by giving undue dispropor- tionate weight to the testimonies of Plaintiffs' witnesses, concluded that Plaintiffs met their burden. Respectfully, my assessment of the evidence ad- duced at trial and my complete review of the entire record in this case con- vinces me that Plaintiffs failed to disentangle the State's political defense from the consideration of race in the formulation of S.B. 8. Not only is the panel majority's decision particularly jarring here, but it also creates an un- tenable dilemma for the State and eviscerates the semblance of its sover- eign prerogative to draw maps. The Louisiana Legislature conducted roadshows, held floor debates, had the author of the bill and numerous legislators explicitly state the 74

Case 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS Document 198 Filed 04/30/24 Page 135 of 135 PageID #: 5025 political impetus for their efforts, and drafted several maps and amend- ments before finally passing S.B. 8. If, after all of that, the majority still found that race predominated in drawing District 6, are we not essentially telling the State that it is incapable of doing the job it is tasked with under the United States and Louisiana constitutions? While the panel majority states that this court does not decide "whether it is feasible to create a second majority-Black district in Louisiana," the context underlying this case in con- junction with its holding functionally answers that question. Majority Op. 58. I worry that the panel majority's decision fails to properly assess the history that led to S.B. 8 and, consequently, dooms us to repeat this cycle. For the foregoing reasons, I would determine that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden showing racial predominance in the drafting of S.B. 8. Alternatively, I would hold that S.B. 8 is constitutional because it is narrowly tailored to further the State's compelling interests in complying with § 2 of the VRA. 75 15