Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves language restricting consent decrees on redistricting, sparking extended Q&A on scope and courts
Summary
The House voted to concur in Senate amendments to a bill that would bar elected officials from entering settlement agreements or consent decrees that alter legislative maps or other district boundaries without legislative approval. Lawmakers debated whether the change would limit local authority and court processes.
House members spent substantial floor time debating House Bill 206, a measure that bars certain elected officials from entering settlement agreements or consent decrees that would alter legislative redistricting or other district boundaries without action from the legislature.
Representative Mellorin, the concurrence sponsor, said the Senate language clarified ambiguity about whether the measure applied to redistricting. "It clarified some language, and made it expressly clear that no elected official can enter into a consent decree, dealing with, or settlement agreement dealing with redistricting or reapportionment of maps of the legislature," he said.
Several members asked how the provision would interact with courts. Representative Marcel asked whether the change removed a tool from litigants and whether plaintiffs and defendants in litigation would be unable to reach settlement maps outside the legislature. Mellorin responded that a federal court could still order a map, but "the 2 parties could not enter into an agreement. They couldn't have a settlement."
Representative Lyons asked whether the provision applied to local school boards or parish commissions; debate focused on whether the statutory language narrowed the rule to "maps of the legislature" or could extend to "any other district map or boundary." The bill's sponsor repeatedly said the legislature should retain authority to change maps created by the legislature and that court-ordered maps remained unaffected.
After extended questions, the House voted to concur in the Senate amendments and approve the language clarifying consent‑decree limits. The clerk announced the concurrence vote as 67 yays and 26 nays. Supporters said the change protects the legislature's constitutional role in mapmaking; critics warned it could reduce settlement options in litigation and increase court‑ordered outcomes.
Ending: The measure now returns to the other chamber (or moves on according to interchamber process) with clarified language; members flagged the provision for stakeholders and legal counsel review ahead of any implementation.
