thesis defense speech

• Slidesgo School
• Presentation Tips

How to Start a Thesis Defense Presentation

After months and years of hard work, the moment to wrap things all up is finally here—your thesis defense presentation.

Whether you’re pursuing a master’s degree or doctorate, it’s the final step to that much-deserved achievement. 

A thesis defense requires a lot of prior research and preparation. And as important as its content is, so is how you present it because a stunning design with clear data and text hierarchy plays an immense role in comprehension.

In this article, we’ll explore how you make your thesis defense .

The organization is the key to success. Establishing some previous steps before any project or work is essential for the result to be very positive. And the defense of a thesis could not be less. 

Below, we will develop all the necessary steps to make a thesis defense presentation and we will give you some tips on how to carry them out.

How to Make an Amazing Presentation

Defining the concept of your thesis presentation, structuring your thesis defense presentation, how do you welcome the audience, tell them why you did this thesis, go into the content by explaining your thesis part by part, how to end the defense of the thesis.

After a long time of research and study, the content of your thesis is ready. Now, you have to find the best way to reflect all that effort behind your work. The information comes across more clearly if you use a visual format, as it attracts the attention of the audience. To present your thesis information in a clear, concise, and ultimately amazing way, you can use one of our unique thesis defense templates , available at Slidesgo.

As an example, in this article, we are going to use the Ecology Thesis template . With it, we will show you what to include in your presentation and how to make an attractive design.

After choosing the Google Slides and PowerPoint template that best suits the needs and subject matter of your thesis, it is time to define an overarching concept.

This is the main theme on which your designs are based. It must be relevant to your thesis as its purpose is to guide your selection of colors, typography, images, style, etc. 

These must be portrayed in a way that supports the main message of your slides and should be aligned with your concept both visually and sociologically.

Once you have defined the concept, you will have to move on to the next step: structuring the content of your thesis. A good structure will show that there is a good organization behind the work, but most importantly: it will highlight your content.

In this article, we are going to show you a structure that could be a good example of how to structure a thesis, but you can adapt it to what your specific content requires.

Before you begin your thesis defense, you should welcome your audience. A good presentation will make you connect with your audience, which will result in more general interest in your work.

Use an appropriate language register (avoid informal language), but be approachable and natural.

"Welcome to the thesis defense on [the title of your thesis]". Next, introduce yourself with your name and give a short description of your background and occupation.

Don't forget to say “thank you for attending!”

To continue establishing that connection with your audience, explain the reasons that led you to do this thesis. Tell the professional reasons, and you can even say some personal ones, which will denote closeness, and your audience will appreciate it.

Now it's time to go into the content of the thesis ! After these preliminary steps, which are just as important as the thesis itself, it is time to explain part by part the structure (which you had previously established). We are going to propose a structure for your project, but the final decision is always yours!

First impressions are very important. Because your title page is the very first thing viewers see, it must be striking and impactful. It also sets the stage for the rest of your slides.

In one glance, the following should be established:

• Thesis defense topic
• Design style

For instance, the ecology thesis’s title page uses illustrations of a natural landscape to represent the topic of nature and a striking shade of blue to set the tone.

The sans serif font used depicts clean-cut typography and style and the thesis topic is written in large and bold typography, which draws attention to it immediately.

Right after your title page, include an introduction slide to provide more details about your topic. 

This means explaining what you hope to answer with your research, its importance to your field, and why you chose it.

Continue to incorporate design elements relevant to your concept. This example has done just that by using a different natural landscape and including animals. For coherence, stick to the same typography and style throughout your presentation.

The aim of the literature review slide is to illustrate your knowledge of your thesis topic and any relevant theories.

Walls of text kill a design. For clarity, we recommend presenting this with bullet points. Each one should be short and sweet and only touch on the basics; you can elaborate on them in your speech. 

Don’t forget to be consistent with your design. In our example, we’ve maintained the tone of blue chosen and added illustrations of leaves in the far corners of the slide. 

Also, address similar research that has been done. This is to showcase your topic’s originality and, if relevant, how it’s different and/or an improvement from previously done research. 

This is one of the most important parts of a thesis defense presentation.

It allows your viewers to assess the rationality and validity of your approach and consequently, the accuracy of your results.

A great methodology slide explains the what , how, and why :

• What method did you use for your research
• Why did you choose it
• How did you conduct it

Because this part of your thesis will be rather technical, the most effective way to aid understanding is by using graphics like charts and tables. 

Keep text to a minimum to avoid drawing attention away from the graphics. If there is a text that must absolutely be included, consider using bullet points and keep them short.

Don’t forget to maintain color, style, and typography coherence.

The results slides are easily the most quantitative part of a thesis defense. 

Here, your aim is to simply introduce your findings. Select the most impactful data and highlight them here.

Just as with methodology, use graphics like charts, tables, and graphs to portray the data in a clear way. And, once again, try not to write too much text. Let the visual content do the talking .

After you’ve introduced your data, the next step would be to help your audience make sense of it. That means understanding what it means in the context of your thesis research topic and your discipline. 

Simply put, you should answer the question: What do the numbers mean?

The best way to approach this would be to do it as if you were creating an infographic . 

Illustrations like icons are a quick and simple way to represent your message. It also reduces the amount of text on your slide, which makes the information much more digestible. 

For a balanced thesis presentation, you should also address any outliers and anomalies.

To quote bestselling author Robin Sharma, “Starting strong is good. Finishing strong is epic.”

That’s exactly what to aim for in your conclusion.

Provide an overview of your thesis topic and remind your audience what you set out to answer with your research. In our example, we’ve used three icons accompanied by a short title and text. 

Following that, reiterate the important points of your research results you want your audience to take away from your thesis defense presentation. 

You can do so by expanding the next slide to have more icons and points, for example.

Don’t forget to address any shortcomings and limitations in your approach and extra points for suggesting possible improvements for future research.

We are going to give you a little tip to make your thesis defense a success. You can combine your defense with good public speaking techniques. Take a look at our article "How to become a great speaker" .

We hope this article has been of great help, have you already seen our templates to make the presentation of your thesis ? Choose the one that best suits your needs, we are sure that one of them will go perfectly with your thesis presentation! 

Good luck from Slidesgo.

Do you find this article useful?

Related tutorials.

Work faster, teach better: boost your skills with Slidesgo Academy

We truly believe that every educator has what it takes to be a fantastic presenter, but we’re also aware of the time it takes to hone these skills. Enter Slidesgo with a great, fast solution: Slidesgo Academy.At this empowering and encouraging platform, we’ve partnered with veteran classroom educators to compile the best tips that will enable you to create engaging, eye-catching, and top-quality presentations for your students and fellow educators. You’ll surprise yourself with how quickly you can craft lessons that engage and excite. Join us as a student, and become the best teacher you can be!

7 tips to create a positive classroom culture

No matter if it's been ages since you last stepped into a classroom or just a long time ago―there’s probably a particular learning experience you often find yourself thinking about. Maybe it was a passionate teacher who kept the whole class engaged, or perhaps a classmate who lent you a hand with a tricky topic. Positive classroom experiences do leave a lasting mark on us, so it makes perfect sense that people leading a classroom aim to create the finest possible learning setting. In this article, we’ll share some tips to help you turn a regular classroom into a positive space.

How to create a word cloud in Google Slides

There are many ways to improve your Google Slides presentation. From choosing the right font to finding the right template, good presentations keep an audience engaged and convey a message in a clear way.Knowing how to visualize data in a slideshow is one of those actions that have a huge impact on the success of a presentation. At the end of the day, plain data fails to motivate decisions as effectively as clear insights do. This is when powerful visual tools like word clouds step in. Let us tell you all about them. 

How to create a word cloud in PowerPoint

In the age of information, showing data has become as important as collecting it. Those who are able to turn big amounts of data into easy-to-understand ideas, are the ones pushing the game forward.At the end of the day, plain data fails to motivate decisions as much as clear insights do. That’s where powerful visual tools such as word clouds step in. We’re here to tell you all about them.

Home Blog Presentation Ideas How To Do a Proper Thesis Defense Using the Right PowerPoint Presentation

How To Do a Proper Thesis Defense Using the Right PowerPoint Presentation

Writing a thesis is stressful, but preparing an oral defense can be even more painful. But it doesn’t have to be; with proper preparation and a good presentation, you will be able to better equip yourself comes time to present your thesis defense.

But what makes a good thesis defense?

A proper presentation helps you with your thesis defense because it helps you capture the panels’ attention and gives you cues and reminders on what to say as well.

It also helps keep your data organized while visually looking good and provides a flow structure for the rest of your presentation.

In today’s article, we will be giving you The Right PowerPoint Templates for Your Thesis Defense and a powerful outline composed of best practices and layouts specifically designed to help you defend your thesis in both written and oral presentations.

In the next segments of this article, we’ll walk you through the most feasible process on how to ace this kind of presentation.

Let’s dive into the outline of what makes a great thesis defense.

Thesis Defense Overview

Similarities.

• Type of Degree

Thesis and Dissertation Distinction Varies on Location

Three most common thesis defense myths, how to use chatgpt to structure your thesis.

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Methodology
• Acknowledgements
• Questions and Answers
• Contact Information
• Tips During Your Oral Defense
• More Quick Tips on How to Present

A thesis defense is composed of two parts – a thesis and a defense.

The thesis, according to Grad School Hub , represents a student’s collective understanding of his or her program and major.

Universities often include a thesis in every course as one of the final requirements to earn a particular graduate or postgraduate degree.

The thesis, however, isn’t just a mere requirement.

It helps the students to grow out of their shell from their respective discipline and give them the opportunity to present all the findings of their study.

Moreover, some people think a thesis is just a long essay, but it’s not. Unlike an essay, a thesis needs to assert something.

This can be considered one of the most crucial research documents that a student makes during their academic schooling .

On the other hand, defense is the presentation of the pieces of evidence to support and prove your research.

It’s the most essential part of the thesis process.

Your presentation has to be prepared to answer questions from members of the committee and any other panel present, and it’s your job to convince them and defend your thesis with ample proof.

Prior to presenting, you have to carefully determine what appropriate evidence should be presented before the panel, depending on what thesis you have to defend.

Thesis and Dissertation Distinguished

A thesis or dissertation is usually required to complete a particular graduate degree. These two words are often used interchangeably by most students when referring to research studies.

But while being almost similar in format or structure, it’s worth noting that they have significant differences that set them apart from each other.

The very reason why thesis and dissertation are treated the same is that these two are both extensive papers. Not just merely long essays like what others are claiming.

Both of these papers are extensive. This is why students are given ample time, usually the entire last semester of the last year of study, to complete all the requirements and finally acquire their degree.

With regards to structure, both papers are very similar with few differences.

Differences Between Thesis and Dissertation

One of the significant differences between the two is to whom the paper is assigned. A thesis is usually required for those students earning a bachelor’s or master’s degree. While a dissertation is for those, who want to obtain a doctorate degree.

However, not all students taking a master’s degree are required to make a thesis. Prior to their enrollment, they have been given a choice of whether they’ll go for a non-thesis program or with a thesis.

Those who have a plan to escalate their degree to a doctorate eventually should take the path of a thesis. This is to prepare themselves for a more extensive dissertation requirement as doctorate students. Otherwise, they will be only limited to earning a master’s degree.

But above all, the most significant difference between the two papers is the purpose for which it is written.

A thesis, like what has been mentioned above, is being done by students obtaining a bachelor’s or master’s degree and has the purpose of testing their understanding of the discipline they’re engaged with.

A thesis is focused on obtaining technical expertise.

On the other hand, a dissertation is made for students to come up with an original study that other researchers haven’t already studied.

USA: In the United States of America, they consider a thesis shorter than a dissertation. In fact, aside from being a requirement to graduate in college, a thesis is now also inculcated in master’s degree programs. And since the dissertation is more extensive, the thesis is treated as preliminary in gaining a doctorate degree.

Europe: The distinction between the two papers is almost opposite to that of the USA. In Europe, a dissertation is only a broader research study from a post-graduate program and not the making of original research. Instead, educational systems in the said continent treat the doctoral thesis as a more elaborate paper writing.

The difference between a thesis and a dissertation might not seem that big, but it’s important that we know what makes them different.

If your upcoming defense gives you pressure and uneasiness, it could be cause you are not sure what to expect. Today we will dispel three common thesis defense myths that will help you be more confident in your presentation.

“Answer all the questions correctly. Otherwise, your thesis won’t get approved.”

You are expected to have a focus on your research.

That being said, you have to study each part of your thesis, every detail, and even your sources.

You have to study and practice how to effectively deliver your presentation.

But don’t overthink to the extent that you’re stressing yourself to know everything perfectly.

Don’t overstress if you can’t answer one of the questions, this doesn’t necessarily mean the committee won’t approve your thesis.

You should know that research is a continuous study.

So you should expect that your committee will always be able to find a gap in your study to fill in future related research .

So in times you don’t exactly know the answer, admit it, and you’ll learn as they give their sides or suggestions.

Making up an answer will only displease your committee, so it’s to be upfront, honest, and transparent.

“The committee is just there to find holes in your study. They don’t care about you.”

One of the typical descriptions students have of the committee is that they are just there to poke holes in your thesis.

Going in with this perspective makes standing before them a nerve-wracking experience.

They’re not your enemy.

In fact, they are there to help you polish your study.

They might challenge you with difficult suggestions and tricky questions.

In the end, they will walk you through the process to come up with better results that won’t only benefit you but also your research.

They care about you and your study, and they’re ultimately there to make your thesis and the research better.  Separate yourself from your work look at it objectively, and don’t take their comments personally .

“If your thesis defense isn’t successful, you have to start your thesis all over again”

An unsuccessful defense is one of the worst-case fears most students have.

One thing that you should be aware of is when you aren’t able to please your committee, you don’t need to start a new thesis again or go back to square one with your existing paper.

It’s unusual that your committee will ask you to change your topic and start from scratch again.

The fact that you’ve been permitted to defend your study means your research is almost complete.

They might suggest further details or ask you for minor revisions, and that’s normal.

But overall, you need to go into this defense thinking that your presentation will be successful. Otherwise, you are already setting yourself up for failure with the wrong mindset.

Remember that positive thoughts attract positive results.

Thesis Defense Presentation Structure and Slides Content

We can use language learning models like ChatGPT to help us curate the structure of our thesis presentation. Let’s see a step-by-step solution on how to apply this.

Step 1: Define the thesis topic and research questions

You can set the environment for ChatGPT to work by explaining what your thesis is going to cover and which specific questions you aim to address through the course of that document. This gives ChatGPT the context from which it shall formulate the structure. A prompt can be written like this:

“Take the role of an academic professional who shall help me to write my thesis. This thesis is going to cover the topic of (insert topic), and through its course, I want to answer these questions: Question 1 – Question 2 – Question 3 – Consider this information as the starting point for this chat.”

Step 2: Ask for an outline

With the previously provided information, ask ChatGPT to generate an outline for your presentation. If some of the points listed in the output don’t convince you, then chat with the interface until you reach a final outline. Then, ask to elaborate on each specific point for information or cues you may have overlooked.

Step 3: Ask ChatGPT which content should you place per slide

Instead of debating how are you going to trim your thesis into a presentation format, ask ChatGPT to do the decision process for you. You can be as specific as asking how many words per slide, how many slides should the presentation have, if you need any visual element, etc.

N.B.: We don’t recommend using ChatGPT to retrieve academic references as, in some cases, it can provide faulty results. You can ask if any facts on this presentation need to be checked or similar questions. ChatGPT is a powerful tool, but it shouldn’t be considered a bible, so be extra cautious about grabbing content directly from its outputs.

1. Title Page

This slide should contain the information that is provided on the title page of your hard copy . Here is an example of title page or cover slide for your title defense or thesis presentation.

• The title of your research paper
• Where you are studying
• Name and details of your course
• Name of Adviser

2. Introduction Slide

Your introduction slide should provide the committee with an idea of the following:

• What is the topic area that you are investigating ?
• What are the specific research questions that you set out to answer?
• Why is this question important to answer?
• What were the objectives of your research?

3. Literature Review Slide

It’s not necessary to cover everything that’s currently understood in the available literature. You may want to present the following content under a Literature Review slide:

• Relevant current research that is close to your topic
• Different theories that may apply to your specific area of research
• Areas of weakness that are currently highlighted

4. Methodology Slide

Make sure to touch the factors below within your process, and include the following in the Methodology slide:

• The type of study you have conducted: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed
• The methods that you chose and why
• Details of the population, sampling methods, and other information
• Provide information regarding how you have analyzed the data that you have collected

5. Results Slide

This part should give the committee/audience a good understanding of what you’ve discovered during your research. The statistics & results slide could include the final results of your analysis, here is an example:

• An overall description of the data that you collected during your research
• The results of the analysis that you have done on that data
• What were the most significant findings from your data

6. Discussion Slide

Highlight here the meaning of the findings in relation to your discipline program and the research that you have done:

• What are the major findings, and what do they mean with regard to your research
• How do these findings relate to what others have found in the past
• How can you explain any unusual or surprising result

7. Conclusions Slide

You have to end your presentation with a conclusion summarizing all that you have found within your research. Here is an example of a Conclusion slide in a Thesis presentation:

• Restate your research questions
• Show how your results answer these questions
• Show what contribution you have made
• State any limitations to the work you have done
• Suggest future research
• Make any recommendations

See Also: How to Create a Great Investors Pitch Deck and Close the Deal

8. Acknowledgements Slide

Express gratitude to your advisor, committee members, peers, and others who supported your research journey. This slide provides a moment to acknowledge the collaborative nature of academic work.

9. Questions and Answers Slide

Dedicate a slide for audience questions at the end of your presentation.

Encourage engagement by inviting questions from the audience.

Be prepared to provide clear and concise responses to inquiries.

10. References Slide

Include a slide listing your cited sources throughout your presentation.

Use a consistent citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).

The References slide demonstrates your thorough engagement with existing literature.

11. Contact Information Slide

If you’re open to further inquiries or collaborations, consider adding your contact information.

Include your email address or relevant professional social media handles.

How to use SlideModel AI Presentation Maker for your Thesis Presentation

If you want to save hours of manual time, you can leverage AI tools to make your thesis presentation. The best part of integrating AI tools into our workflow is that we can pair them to get even better results than we expected. With SlideModel’s AI presentation maker , users can create an entire slide deck by introducing these variables:

• Topic of your thesis
• Number of slides to include in your thesis presentation
• Outline checkup

And that’s it! Download the AI-generated presentation in PPTX format or for Google Slides, and edit it if you require adding some extra content. The core elements are already done, and you can save countless hours of hard work.

Tips During Your Oral Defense!

Review your materials.

Even if you already feel confident with your upcoming presentation, you still need to review your materials.

You can bring the hard copy of your thesis with you during the defense, but you don’t want to get lost in your presentation when you forget some specific details and have to scan your papers.

You should know your paper in and out.

Rehearse Your Presentation

It’s not wrong if it sounds like a script when you speak in your oral defense. It’s expected and understandable.

You need to practice your presentation, especially when there’s a time restriction given to every presenter.

You only need to prepare enough slides that would fit your time limit. A hundred slides aren’t suitable for a 15 to 20-minute presentation, nor 10 slides for an hour of defense.

Your rehearsal will be more effective if you practice it in front of an audience.

Note: You will experience complete silence in the defense room. You might feel awkward because, most of the time, you’re the only one speaking out loud.  This is completely fine, and it’s something you should practice in rehearsal should you be afraid.

Narrow the Presentation of Ideas

Regarding your slides, you don’t have to include everything that’s in your paper. You should narrow down your ideas to the main points and the most important details, such as the statistics and findings.

If the members of your committee think you lack details or they want to hear a further explanation, they won’t hesitate to ask you.

Prepare for the Unexpected Questions

The panel tends to challenge the presenters, usually through some hard questions.

Its aim is how well do you you have done your research and how prepared you are.

But as long as you know the ins and outs of your paper, you shouldn’t lose your confidence regardless of which questions they ask.

Just keep in mind that what you’re saying in your oral defense is not in conflict with what is written on the hard copy you provided them.

What To Do When You Don’t Know the Answer

If the committee asks you a question and you don’t know the answer, don’t make up a baseless answer.

Baseless means out-of-context answers or something without proof or backup.

How To Deal With The Nervousness

The committee expects you to be nervous. Of course, it’s normal.

However, one effect of being nervous is the changes in your behavior.

There’s a tendency for you’ll talk fast, which will make it hard for the committee to understand you.

It might also cause you to have a mental block.

So try to slow down. Take a deep breath.

Inhale, exhale.  Remember to breathe!

It’s OK to pause, and it’s OK to take your time; it’s more important that the committee clearly understands what you are trying to articulate.

More Quick Tips on How to Present!

• Introduce yourself at the beginning
• Introduce the title of the presentation
• Don’t read your notes if possible
• Don’t speak too fast
• Put an emphasis on what you’re saying so you don’t sound monotonous
• Look at your adviser once in a while for possible signs
• Stand on the right of the white screen if you are right-handed so you can easily refer to the slide without giving your back to the committee
• Face the audience when you talk
• Keep an eye contact
• Make sure to keep attention to the reactions of the committee and don’t forget to react in turn

We hope you enjoyed this article on how to do a proper thesis defense and how to best prepare for one using proven tips and techniques to help you get through this.  Hopefully, after your defense, you will be set as the one in your class to deliver an inspiring graduation speech for your peers. If you have value, please remember to share this article. We also recommend you read these Thesis Statement Examples for inspiration to create your own professionally.

1. MasterDoc PowerPoint Template

Creating a Thesis presentation should be a straight forward task; based on your thesis document and following the tips described above you have a high level structure already outlined. The MasterDoc PowerPoint template provides professional layouts with texts and image placeholders; so you can create document like slides using your thesis defense as your content. This template is ideal for a highly detailed documents, where visuals and words unite to illustrate one concept per page. The result is an asset that can be read and digested more quickly than either your thesis document or a presentation created for assisting a speech. A document created with the MasterDoc PowerPoint templates is meant to be printed or distributed, read on screen without the accompaniment of a presenter or used in an e-learning platform as pure learning content.

Use This Template

2. Thesis Presentation PowerPoint Template

You had invested a considerable time researching, testing hypothesis and confirming your thesis. Craft your thesis presentation with the same level of detail you applied in your work. Using the Thesis Presentation PowerPoint Template you will focus only in your content and your message. The layouts, images,design and structure will be taken care by the template.

3. Master Thesis PowerPoint Template

The Master Thesis PowerPoint Template is a professional document designed for postgraduate degrees presentations. It provides simple sections that follow  the structure and best practices of traditional research thesis presentations. Starting with the introduction to the theory and state of the art scenario; following with hypothesis research and its findings and concluding with the confirmation or negation of the initial thesis statement.

4. Essay Outline PowerPoint Template

Your thesis defense can be accompanied by an essay, that states your thesis and argues about it using several supporting paragraphs. This kind of document is ideal to be an intermediate step between reading assisting to the thesis presentation and reading the complete thesis documentation. It has more information that your thesis defense abstract, but does summarizes the supporting evidence and examples that allows the argument of each idea behind the thesis. You can use the Essay Outline Template to present your Essay outline and create an essay linked to your thesis defense documentation.

Like this article? Please share

Academics, Degree, Dissertation, Doctorate, Education, Faculty, Master, PhD, Student, Thesis Filed under Presentation Ideas

Related Articles

Filed under Presentation Ideas • November 9th, 2023

How to Create and Deliver a Research Presentation

Presentation is one of the final steps of a research endeavor. Learn how to make and deliver a research presentation using our templates and tips.

Filed under Education • September 10th, 2023

How To Write An Essay? – Where to start?

Do you wonder How to write an essay ? Start with the essay structure. This post describes the standard essay structure with its content, and which essay types are popular. Develop your writing skills using the best practices of Essay Structure.

Filed under Education • September 2nd, 2023

Thesis Statement Examples

What makes a good thesis statement? Simple answer, precision and enough evidence to support your statement. In this article we analyze what are good thesis statements with examples.

36 Responses to “How To Do a Proper Thesis Defense Using the Right PowerPoint Presentation”

Great job! This has made my thesis presentation a whole lot easier.

Excellent !!!!!

Now I feel I’m quite confident on how to do my dissertation presentation properly and how to defend it. I will share that with other friends and colleagues.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Best regards, Awad

Thank you for such a valuable guide.

it was very helpful

Thanks a bunch for the general summary for thesis defense with all related information that we might have to know. Great job!

Great tips.

i have proposal defense in two days and im so nervous right now! reading this is helpful in some ways thankyou!

It’s very helpful and understandable. Easy steps to follow.

I found it very helpful to refresh and make my self ready for my defense!

Thank you a lot this article. It’s really helpful!

Naveen Kumar S: Thank you its very Helpful. I appreciate all your effort this is very useful.

Very important and interesting so go on thank you

I really like it. In the near future I am going to present for the MA thesis. Therefore, it will guide me a lot. If you can please attach with this email the detail.

I do like the article as it proves to be valuable and worthy. I enjoyed reading every single note. It helped me feel at ease and have confidence when my viva day takes place. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

Appreciate your Assistance

Thanks a lot for the gist

Thank you so much, I got full information and knowledge.

This has made me look forward to my thesis defense. Thanks a lot

Very useful

thank you very much for your best information

Thank you very much the article is full of knowledge on Thesis as well as dissertation defense. Big Up!

I am appreciative. Well informative and educative.

Thanks immensely for these wonderful tips on presentation during defense. I personally found more useful to me as I prepare to defend my Master Dissertation.

Thank you very much! I now feel more confident.

Thanks for your good self overall usability of the Participations motivated points and contribute significantly in thesis defense practices. Best wishes to one and All

Happy To Help.

Thank you very much. As I am pursuing for my PhD in Leadership, I got it so meaningful and worth having.

Your tips on What a Thesis and Dissertation are, are on point. I have fully understood their differences and similarities. I have also noted the killer way of summaring a Power Point Presentation. Slidemodel.com…you are just a force to reckon with. I need more information…in case you have models you can share with me and those interested in this subject covered.

Thanks a million times for your timely guidance. Just preparing to do my PhD Thesis defense.

this was very, very helpful…Thank you!

Highly appreciate your effort to deliver what a student is looking for. I find your article really helpful and to the point. Thanks !

Regarding to my P.P, I’ve understood so many issues from this. Thankyou!

i got it as it is so important for my deffence presentation, thanky you very much

This Material was very hopeful and encourage any student who prepare any presentation relation with thesis. It also combined more encauragable and it enhance presentation!

Thought provoking content Thank you.

Great comments. very helpful

Leave a Reply

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to prepare an excellent thesis defense

What is a thesis defense?

How long is a thesis defense, what happens at a thesis defense, your presentation, questions from the committee, 6 tips to help you prepare for your thesis defense, 1. anticipate questions and prepare for them, 2. dress for success, 3. ask for help, as needed, 4. have a backup plan, 5. prepare for the possibility that you might not know an answer, 6. de-stress before, during, and after, frequently asked questions about preparing an excellent thesis defense, related articles.

If you're about to complete, or have ever completed a graduate degree, you have most likely come across the term "thesis defense." In many countries, to finish a graduate degree, you have to write a thesis .

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

Once you hand in your thesis, you will be assigned a date to defend your work. Your thesis defense meeting usually consists of you and a committee of two or more professors working in your program. It may also include other people, like professionals from other colleges or those who are working in your field.

During your thesis defense, you will be asked questions about your work. The main purpose of your thesis defense is for the committee to make sure that you actually understand your field and focus area.

The questions are usually open-ended and require the student to think critically about their work. By the time of your thesis defense, your paper has already been evaluated. The questions asked are not designed so that you actually have to aggressively "defend" your work; often, your thesis defense is more of a formality required so that you can get your degree.

• Check with your department about requirements and timing.
• Re-read your thesis.
• Anticipate questions and prepare for them.
• Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups.
• Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense.

How long your oral thesis defense is depends largely on the institution and requirements of your degree. It is best to consult your department or institution about this. In general, a thesis defense may take only 20 minutes, but it may also take two hours or more. The length also depends on how much time is allocated to the presentation and questioning part.

Tip: Check with your department or institution as soon as possible to determine the approved length for a thesis defense.

First of all, be aware that a thesis defense varies from country to country. This is just a general overview, but a thesis defense can take many different formats. Some are closed, others are public defenses. Some take place with two committee members, some with more examiners.

The same goes for the length of your thesis defense, as mentioned above. The most important first step for you is to clarify with your department what the structure of your thesis defense will look like. In general, your thesis defense will include:

• your presentation of around 20-30 minutes
• questions from the committee
• questions from the audience (if the defense is public and the department allows it)

You might have to give a presentation, often with Powerpoint, Google slides, or Keynote slides. Make sure to prepare an appropriate amount of slides. A general rule is to use about 10 slides for a 20-minute presentation.

But that also depends on your specific topic and the way you present. The good news is that there will be plenty of time ahead of your thesis defense to prepare your slides and practice your presentation alone and in front of friends or family.

Tip: Practice delivering your thesis presentation in front of family, friends, or colleagues.

You can prepare your slides by using information from your thesis' first chapter (the overview of your thesis) as a framework or outline. Substantive information in your thesis should correspond with your slides.

Make sure your slides are of good quality— both in terms of the integrity of the information and the appearance. If you need more help with how to prepare your presentation slides, both the ASQ Higher Education Brief and James Hayton have good guidelines on the topic.

The committee will ask questions about your work after you finish your presentation. The questions will most likely be about the core content of your thesis, such as what you learned from the study you conducted. They may also ask you to summarize certain findings and to discuss how your work will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Tip: Read your entire thesis in preparation of the questions, so you have a refreshed perspective on your work.

While you are preparing, you can create a list of possible questions and try to answer them. You can foresee many of the questions you will get by simply spending some time rereading your thesis.

Here are a few tips on how to prepare for your thesis defense:

You can absolutely prepare for most of the questions you will be asked. Read through your thesis and while you're reading it, create a list of possible questions. In addition, since you will know who will be on the committee, look at the academic expertise of the committee members. In what areas would they most likely be focused?

If possible, sit at other thesis defenses with these committee members to get a feel for how they ask and what they ask. As a graduate student, you should generally be adept at anticipating test questions, so use this advantage to gather as much information as possible before your thesis defense meeting.

Your thesis defense is a formal event, often the entire department or university is invited to participate. It signals a critical rite of passage for graduate students and faculty who have supported them throughout a long and challenging process.

While most universities don't have specific rules on how to dress for that event, do regard it with dignity and respect. This one might be a no-brainer, but know that you should dress as if you were on a job interview or delivering a paper at a conference.

It might help you deal with your stress before your thesis defense to entrust someone with the smaller but important responsibilities of your defense well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for:

• preparing the room of the day of defense
• setting up equipment for the presentation
• preparing and distributing handouts

Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your Powerpoint presentation will work at all or look the way it is supposed to on the big screen. We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Handouts can help when technology fails, and an additional clean shirt can save the day if you have a spill.

One of the scariest aspects of the defense is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. While you can prepare for some questions, you can never know exactly what the committee will ask.

There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. You are not expected to know everything.

James Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to, out of curiosity, or because they want to see how you think. While it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] in order to find out.” This shows that you have the ability to think as an academic.

You will be nervous. But your examiners will expect you to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions, for example. Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com notes that it’s a myth that thesis committees are out to get you.

Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking really fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Remember what feels like hours to you are just a few seconds in real life.

• Try meditational breathing right before your defense.
• Get plenty of exercise and sleep in the weeks prior to your defense.
• Have your clothes or other items you need ready to go the night before.
• During your defense, allow yourself to process each question before answering.
• Go to dinner with friends and family, or to a fun activity like mini-golf, after your defense.

Allow yourself to process each question, respond to it, and stop talking once you have responded. While a smile can often help dissolve a difficult situation, remember that nervous laughs can be irritating for your audience.

We all make mistakes and your thesis defense will not be perfect. However, careful preparation, mindfulness, and confidence can help you feel less stressful both before, and during, your defense.

Finally, consider planning something fun that you can look forward to after your defense.

It is completely normal to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions for example if needed. Slow yourself down, and take a deep breath.

Your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. James Hayton writes on his blog that it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", but he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, you would need to do [...] in order to find out".

Your Powerpoint presentation can get stuck or not look the way it is supposed to do on the big screen. It can happen and your supervisors know it. In general, handouts can always save the day when technology fails.

• Dress for success.
• Ask for help setting up.
• Have a backup plan (in case technology fails you).
• Deal with your nerves.

How to Pull Off Your Thesis Defense With a Great Presentation

You’ve reached the home stretch in your journey toward your post-graduate degree. You’ve diligently studied, researched and performed for years, and all that’s left is your master thesis or doctorate dissertation. 

“ All that’s left,” however, might be the understatement of the century. There’s nothing simple about orally defending your thesis, and this final stage often means the difference between a degree and a program that remains incomplete.

Even after you’ve dedicated months filled with blood, sweat and tears defining your argument, researching your support and writing your defense, you aren’t ready to address the academic panel. You still have to design an effective visual presentation, and the slide deck can make or break your entire thesis.

Unsure how to design a stellar slide deck to visually present your thesis or dissertation? Check out the following tips to pull off your master thesis defense with a great presentation:

1.   Properly structure your slide deck

Every master thesis defense presentation is unique, but most effective slide decks will follow a similar structure, including:  

• Title - Just like a research paper, your thesis presentation must include a title slide. This should include the same information as any other title page: the title, your name, your academic institution, course name and the name of the academic advisor to your thesis or dissertation. That doesn’t mean your title slide needs to look like the start of any other Frankendeck . Instead, add your text atop a relative image, and adjust the brightness to ensure your text pops.
• Introduction - Your thesis presentation should also include an introduction slide, which details the topic of your thesis, the question your research will seek to answer and any additional objectives to your research, as well as the answer or solution you will be defending.
• Literature review - Following your thesis introduction, design one or more slides that review the literature you researched. This shouldn’t be a full bibliography (although that should be included in the accompanying written account of your research), but instead, the slides should list your most relevant research sources. If the information is featured on a slide, make sure you include its source. 
• Methodology - Your thesis presentation slide deck should also include a slide (or slides) detailing the methodology of your research and argument. Here you want to describe the type of study— whether it’s quantitative, qualitative or a combination of the two, as well as an explanation of why you chose the method or methods you used. If you conducted original research, you will want to detail the study population, sampling methods and other details pertinent to your studies, while you’ll also want to detail how you analyzed your data.
• Results - No thesis presentation slide deck is complete without dedicating slides to illustrate the results of your research. Be sure to include a description of any data you collected through your research, as well as the results of your analysis of the data. What were your most significant findings?
• Discussion - How do the results of your research support your overall thesis argument? Be sure to include slides that discuss your overall findings and how they relate to your original question.
• Conclusion - Concluding slides should restate your original research questions, represent the results of your research, suggest future research and make any final recommendations.
• Ending slide – Close your thesis presentation with a concluding slide that offers an interesting quote or trivia that makes your audience further ponder your topic, a GIF or animation that recaptures the audience’s attention or even a hypothetical question that opens additional discussion from the academic panel. This is your opportunity to make your presentation memorable.

Thesis Presentation vs. Dissertation

Thesis presentation and dissertation are two terms often used in academic settings related to upper education. While they are related, there are distinct differences between the two, which is important to understand as you begin to structure your thesis defense.

‍ A thesis presentation typically refers to the final oral presentation that a student gives to defend their thesis or research project. It is a formal presentation to explain their findings, methodology, and conclusions to a panel of faculty members or experts in the field. The purpose of a thesis defense presentation is to demonstrate the student's knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and to defend the validity of their research.

On the other hand, a dissertation refers to a lengthy and comprehensive research project that is typically required for the completion of a doctoral degree. It involves in-depth research, analysis, and the development of original ideas in a particular field of study. A dissertation is usually written over an extended period and is expected to contribute new knowledge or insights to the field. Unlike a thesis presentation, a dissertation is submitted in written form and is typically evaluated by a committee of faculty members or experts in the field.

2.   Choose which ideas to illustrate

Unless you have an hour to fill with your master thesis defense or doctorate dissertation, you won’t be able to include every idea from your overall research documentation in your slide show. Choose the most important ideas to illustrate on slides, while also keeping in mind what aspects of your research you’ll be able to visually represent.

3.   Define your presentation’s theme

A stellar thesis or dissertation presentation will be professional in appearance, and a cohesive design is an absolute must. Choose what types of typography and color schemes best support your topic. 

Instead of adjusting these settings on each individual slide— a tedious task at best— choose a PowerPoint-alternative presentation software like Beautiful.ai that allows you to customize a theme for your entire slide deck. Choose your fonts and other typography, your color palette, margins, footers, logos, transitions and more, and the cloud-based tool will automatically apply those design specifications to every slide you add to the master thesis defense presentation.

4.   Design simple and focused slides

You might have a lot of information to present, but when it comes to your thesis presentation— or almost any slide deck for that matter— less is more. Be sure every slide counts by focusing on your main points. 

Then, whatever you do, keep your slides simple. Not even an academic panel is going to dedicate much time deciphering a cluttered slide with all too many details. Try to avoid presenting more than one or two ideas on each slide.

5.   Include data visualizations

The whole point of your presentation is to illustrate the concepts included in your thesis. Humans are visual creatures and react strongly to imagery, and the panel evaluating your thesis or dissertation is no exception— regardless of how studious and formal the academics might seem. Illustrate the results of your research with colorful and engaging infographics . You don’t have to be a graphic designer to create them, either. 

Beautiful.ai users can choose from a host of smart slide templates with data visualizations — including favorites like bar graphs and pie charts , as well as less common options like scattergraphs , flow charts and pictograms . Just input your data and watch as our special brand of artificial intelligence creates the infographic for you.  

6.   Practice makes perfect

After spending months researching your thesis or dissertation, writing about your findings and designing a stellar master thesis defense presentation, you would hate to see all your hard work be for naught. That’s still a distinct possibility, however, if you don’t also practice your delivery. 

Practice, practice and practice some more until you know your master thesis defense like the back of your hand. No academic panel will be impressed by a graduate candidate who stumbles through their presentation or appears to be reading from their notes. Know the contents of every slide, as well as exactly what parts of your overall defense you want to deliver during its display. 

Things to keep in mind to help you nail your presentation

The golden rule of any presentation is to keep your audience engaged. You can ensure a more engaging presentation by maintaining eye contact, using appropriate gestures, and speaking clearly. You can also choose to include the audience in your presentation with interactive questions, polls, and slides.

To help boost audience retention, utilize storytelling. Studies show that when facts are presented in the form of a story, people are 22 times more likely to remember them. Talk about powerful.

Last but not least, plan for questions— and not simply by allowing time for them. Watch other thesis defenses delivered at your institution, and consider what types of questions the academic panel might ask, so you can prepare the best possible answer.

Extra credit:

Get started with our PhD Defense Thesis presentation template here .

Samantha Pratt Lile

Samantha is an independent journalist, editor, blogger and content manager. Examples of her published work can be found at sites including the Huffington Post, Thrive Global, and Buzzfeed.

Recommended Articles

The art of persuasion: 3 tips for persuasive speeches, a four step strategy to conquering your fear of public speaking, what are the elements of a powerful presentation, 5 ways to pitch solar energy installation to homeowners and businesses.

The 10 Key Components of a Successful Thesis Defence Presentation

Sep 27, 2023 | Research FAQs

What are the Key Components of a Successful Thesis Defence Presentation?

The culmination of years of rigorous research, analysis, and academic dedication is often encapsulated in a single event – a successful thesis defence presentation. This pivotal moment in an academic journey can be both exhilarating and nerve-wracking. Success hinges on a well-prepared and effectively delivered presentation. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the key components of a successful thesis defence presentation, equipping you with the knowledge and insights necessary to navigate this critical milestone in your academic career.

10 Key Strategies To Defend Your Thesis

#1 clearly define your statement of thesis.

At the heart of every successful thesis defence presentation lies a well-articulated statement of thesis. This concise and focused sentence or two should encapsulate the core question or problem your research addresses. Peer review, a critical evaluation of your work by experts in the field, often commences with a thorough assessment of the clarity and relevance of your thesis statement. It is the compass that guides your entire presentation.

The statement of thesis serves as the cornerstone of an entire successful thesis defence presentation, and its importance cannot be overstated. This concise and focused sentence or two should encapsulate the core question or problem your research addresses. Think of it as the spark that ignites the intellectual journey you’re about to take your audience on.

When you consider the peer review process, it becomes clear that the experts in your field are like seasoned explorers, setting out on an intellectual expedition through your work. And where does their journey begin? With your thesis statement. It acts as the compass that guides their critical evaluation. They venture into the depths of your research, often commencing with a meticulous assessment of the clarity and relevance of your thesis statement. It’s not merely a formality; it’s a critical checkpoint to ensure that your compass is finely tuned and aligned with the path you’ve forged.

#2 Comprehensive Literature Review

A robust literature review demonstrates your understanding of the existing body of knowledge in your field. This component of your presentation should not merely summarise relevant literature but critically analyse it. Peer-reviewed journals, academic databases, and scholarly publications are invaluable resources for conducting a thorough literature review. Clearly demonstrate how your research fits into the existing landscape and adds a new dimension to the field.

Your literature review isn’t just a bibliography; it’s the evidence of your mastery over the existing body of knowledge in your field. It should be robust, showcasing your understanding and critical thinking abilities. Think of it as a treasure trove of insights from the minds of scholars who have paved the way before you.

Peer-reviewed journals, academic databases, and scholarly publications are the maps to this treasure trove. They are invaluable resources for conducting a thorough literature review. But remember, your role is not merely that of a summariser; you are an interpreter. Your presentation should not merely summarise relevant literature but critically analyse it. Imagine yourself as an art critic, dissecting each brushstroke to reveal the masterpiece that is your research. Show the audience how your research fits into the existing landscape and adds a new dimension to the field, like an artist contributing a unique piece to a gallery.

#3 Methodology and Data Collection

Describe in detail the methodologies employed in your research, addressing questions such as: How did you collect data? What tools or instruments did you use? How did you ensure the validity and reliability of your data? Peer review often scrutinises the rigor of your research methods, so be prepared to defend your choices and demonstrate their appropriateness for your study.

Your methodology is the blueprint of your research, and the data you collect are the bricks that build your thesis. This section deserves meticulous attention and clarity. Describe in detail the methodologies employed in your research. Address questions such as: How did you collect data? What tools or instruments did you use? How did you ensure the validity and reliability of your data? Think of it as the architectural plans that ensure your thesis stands tall and sturdy.

Keep in mind that peer review often scrutinises the rigor of your research methods. It’s like having a team of experienced builders inspecting your construction site for structural integrity. Be prepared to defend your choices and demonstrate their appropriateness for your study. You’re not just presenting data; you’re presenting the process behind the creation of your data.

#4 Data Analysis and Results

Present your findings with precision and clarity. Utilise graphs, tables, and visuals to enhance comprehension. Peer review experts will closely examine your data analysis methods to ensure they are statistically sound. Transparency in reporting results, including any limitations or unexpected outcomes, is crucial. Remember, transparency fosters credibility.

Your data is the treasure you’ve unearthed through your research, and it’s time to present it with precision and clarity. Visual aids like graphs, tables, and visuals should be your artistic tools. Imagine yourself as a storyteller, weaving a narrative with data points.

Peer review experts will closely examine your data analysis methods to ensure they are statistically sound. It’s akin to having statisticians double-check your calculations. Transparency in reporting results is paramount. Think of it as being transparent about the ingredients of a recipe; it fosters credibility. Be honest about any limitations or unexpected outcomes, just as a chef might explain a dish’s unique flavours. Transparency invites trust and understanding.

#5 Discussion and Interpretation

This is your opportunity to showcase your critical thinking skills. Discuss the implications of your findings in the context of your thesis statement and existing literature. Address any unanswered questions or areas for future research. Peer review experts will assess the depth of your analysis and the coherence of your interpretations.

This is the moment when your audience gets a glimpse of your critical thinking skills. It’s not just about presenting data; it’s about the story behind the data. Consider yourself a detective solving a complex mystery. Discuss the implications of your findings in the context of your thesis statement and existing literature.

Address any unanswered questions or areas for future research. This is your chance to engage your audience in a scholarly conversation. Peer review experts will assess the depth of your analysis and the coherence of your interpretations. Think of it as a roundtable discussion where your ideas are put to the test.

#6 Effective Presentation Skills

Engage your audience with effective presentation skills. Practice your delivery, ensuring that you maintain eye contact, speak clearly, and use appropriate gestures. A confident and composed demeanour goes a long way in conveying your expertise. Utilise visual aids sparingly and strategically to enhance, not overwhelm, your presentation.

As you step into the spotlight of your thesis defence presentation, imagine yourself as a performer on the academic stage. Engage your audience with effective presentation skills that not only convey your expertise but also hold their attention. Practice your delivery meticulously to ensure that you maintain eye contact, speak clearly, and use appropriate gestures.

Confidence is your best companion on this stage. A confident and composed demeanour goes a long way in conveying your mastery of the subject matter. Utilise visual aids sparingly and strategically to enhance, not overwhelm, your presentation. Think of them as props in a play, designed to complement your narrative, not steal the show.

#7 Anticipate and Address Questions

Be prepared for a barrage of questions from the thesis committee during and after your presentation. Anticipate potential queries based on your research and be ready to provide well-informed responses. Peer review often extends to this phase, assessing your ability to defend your research and engage in scholarly discourse.

The Q&A session during and after your presentation is a challenging yet essential phase. Imagine it as the part of your performance where the audience gets to interact with you directly. Be prepared for a barrage of questions from the thesis committee. Anticipate potential queries based on your research and be ready to provide well-informed responses.

Peer review often extends to this phase, assessing your ability to defend your research and engage in scholarly discourse. Think of it as a debate where you defend your thesis against the toughest opponents. Embrace questions as opportunities to showcase your expertise and deepen the understanding of your work.

#8 Time Management

Respect the allocated time for your presentation. Going over your time limit can be detrimental and reflects poorly on your preparation. Time management is a skill that not only demonstrates professionalism but also allows for a smoother and more focused presentation.

Time management is the conductor’s baton in the symphony of your presentation. It’s not just about keeping things on schedule; it’s about ensuring that your performance is harmonious and well-paced. Respect the allocated time for your presentation. Going over your time limit can be detrimental and reflects poorly on your preparation.

Think of your presentation as a well-rehearsed orchestral piece, with each section seamlessly flowing into the next. Time management is the key to orchestrating this performance effectively. It demonstrates professionalism and allows for a smoother and more focused presentation.

#9 Adaptability

Be ready to adapt to unforeseen circumstances or questions. Your ability to handle unexpected challenges with grace and knowledge can leave a positive impression on both your thesis committee and peer reviewers.

In the world of academia, as in life, surprises are inevitable. Be ready to adapt to unforeseen circumstances or questions. Your ability to handle unexpected challenges with grace and knowledge can leave a lasting positive impression on both your thesis committee and peer reviewers.

Think of this adaptability as the mark of a seasoned explorer who can navigate uncharted territory. The ability to pivot gracefully when faced with the unexpected demonstrates your resilience and expertise.

#10 Mock Defences and Feedback

Prior to your actual defence, conduct mock thesis defence presentations with peers or mentors. Seek constructive feedback to refine your presentation. This rehearsal process can help you identify areas that may require improvement and boost your confidence.

Before the curtain rises on your actual defence, consider the value of dress rehearsals in the world of theatre. Prior to your defence, conduct mock thesis defence presentations with peers or mentors. Seek constructive feedback to refine your presentation. This rehearsal process can help you identify areas that may require improvement and boost your confidence.

Think of these mock defences as a preview performance, an opportunity to fine-tune your act before the main event. Constructive feedback from trusted sources is like the guidance of seasoned directors, helping you polish your performance and ensure you’re ready for the spotlight.

In conclusion, a successful thesis defence presentation is a multifaceted performance that combines research expertise, effective communication, and adaptability. Each component plays a crucial role in shaping the narrative of your research journey. Just as a skilled performer prepares meticulously for a show, you too must invest time and effort in honing your skills and refining your presentation. Embrace the peer review process as a means to elevate your work and ensure it stands up to the scrutiny of the academic community. With these key components and a commitment to excellence, you’ll not only defend your thesis but also make a meaningful contribution to your field of study.

Key Tips To A Successful Thesis Defence 

• Clear and Concise Thesis Statement : Craft a thesis statement that is clear, concise, and aligned with your research.
• Thorough Literature Review : Leave no stone unturned in your literature review to demonstrate your grasp of existing knowledge.
• Prepare for Questions : Anticipate questions and practice your responses to showcase your expertise.
• Practice and Timing : Practice your presentation and stick to the allotted time.
• Adaptability and Confidence : Stay adaptable and confident in the face of unexpected challenges.

The Building Blocks of a Successful Thesis Defence Presentation

In the realm of academia, the successful thesis defence presentation is a culmination of years of dedication, research, and scholarship. It is a testament to your expertise in your chosen field and your ability to contribute to the body of knowledge. Key components, such as a well-defined thesis statement, a comprehensive literature review, meticulous data analysis, and effective presentation skills, are the building blocks of a successful presentation.

Moreover, the engagement with peer review processes adds a layer of scrutiny that enhances the quality and credibility of your work. Embrace feedback, both during mock defences and from the thesis committee, as opportunities for growth and refinement.

As you embark on this academic journey, remember that a successful thesis defence presentation is not just a milestone but a stepping stone to a future where your research can make a significant impact. The key to success lies in meticulous preparation, effective communication, and a deep passion for your subject matter. With these components in place, you are well on your way to a successful thesis defence.

Useful Resources

Way With Words – Website: https://waywithwords.net/services/transcription-services . A reliable source for academic research transcription services, ensuring accuracy and professionalism in transcribing your research data.

Peer Review Process – Website: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review . Understand the peer review process and its significance in academic research.

Engagement Questions

As you prepare for a successful thesis defence, ask yourself:

• How can I best convey the significance of my research to both my thesis committee and the broader academic community?
• How can I use peer review feedback to strengthen my work?
• What are the key takeaways from my research that I want my audience to remember?

Remember that a successful thesis defence is not just about defending your research; it’s about sharing your passion and contributing to the academic discourse in your field. Embrace the journey, and you’ll emerge from it with a deeper understanding of your subject and a sense of accomplishment that comes from mastering this critical academic milestone.

Preparing For Your Dissertation Defense

13 Key Questions To Expect In The Viva Voce

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Preparing for your dissertation or thesis defense (also called a “viva voce”) is a formidable task . All your hard work over the years leads you to this one point, and you’ll need to defend yourself against some of the most experienced researchers you’ve encountered so far.

It’s natural to feel a little nervous.

In this post, we’ll cover some of the most important questions you should be able to answer in your viva voce, whether it’s for a Masters or PhD degree. Naturally, they might not arise in exactly the same form (some may not come up at all), but if you can answer these questions well, it means you’re in a good position to tackle your oral defense.

Viva Voce Prep: 13 Essential Questions

• What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?
• How did your research questions evolve during the research process?
• How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?
• How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?
• How generalisable and valid are the findings?
• What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?
• How did your findings relate to the existing literature?
• What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?
• Were there any findings that surprised you?
• What biases may exist in your research?
• How can your findings be put into practice?
• How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?
• If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

#1: What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?

This question, a classic party starter, is pretty straightforward.

What the dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to clearly articulate your research aims, objectives and research questions in a concise manner. Concise is the keyword here – you need to clearly explain your research topic without rambling on for a half-hour. Don’t feel the need to go into the weeds here – you’ll have many opportunities to unpack the details later on.

In the second half of the question, they’re looking for a brief explanation of the justification of your research. In other words, why was this particular set of research aims, objectives and questions worth addressing? To address this question well in your oral defense, you need to make it clear what gap existed within the research and why that gap was worth filling.

#2: How did your research questions evolve during the research process?

Good research generally follows a long and winding path . It’s seldom a straight line (unless you got really lucky). What they’re assessing here is your ability to follow that path and let the research process unfold.

Specifically, they’ll want to hear about the impact that the literature review process had on you in terms of shaping the research aims, objectives and research questions . For example, you may have started with a certain set of aims, but then as you immersed yourself in the literature, you may have changed direction. Similarly, your initial fieldwork findings may have turned out some unexpected data that drove you to adjust or expand on your initial research questions.

Long story short – a good defense involves clearly describing your research journey , including all the twists and turns. Adjusting your direction based on findings in the literature or the fieldwork shows that you’re responsive , which is essential for high-quality research.

#3: How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?

A comprehensive literature review is the foundation of any high-quality piece of research. With this question, your dissertation or thesis committee are trying to assess which quality criteria and approach you used to select the sources for your literature review.

Typically, good research draws on both the seminal work in the respective field and more recent sources . In other words, a combination of the older landmark studies and pivotal work, along with up-to-date sources that build on to those older studies. This combination ensures that the study has a rock-solid foundation but is not out of date.

So, make sure that your study draws on a mix of both the “classics” and new kids on the block, and take note of any major evolutions in the literature that you can use as an example when asked this question in your viva voce.

#4: How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?

This is a classic methodological question that you can almost certainly expect in some or other shape.

What they’re looking for here is a clear articulation of the research design and methodology, as well as a strong justification of each choice . So, you need to be able to walk through each methodological choice and clearly explain both what you did and why you did it. The why is particularly important – you need to be able to justify each choice you made by clearly linking your design back to your research aims, objectives and research questions, while also taking into account practical constraints.

To ensure you cover every base, check out our research methodology vlog post , as well as our post covering the Research Onion .

#5: How generalizable and valid are the findings?

This question is aimed at specifically digging into your understanding of the sample and how that relates to the population, as well as potential validity issues in your methodology.

To answer question this well, you’ll need to critically assess your sample and findings and consider if they truly apply to the entire population, as well as whether they assessed what they set out to. Note that there are two components here – generalizability and validity . Generalizability is about how well the sample represents the population. Validity is about how accurately you’ve measured what you intended to measure .

To ace this part of your dissertation defense, make sure that you’re very familiar with the concepts of generalizability , validity and reliability , and how these apply to your research. Remember, you don’t need to achieve perfection – you just need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your research (and how the weaknesses could be improved upon).

Need a helping hand?

#6: What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?

This question picks up where the last one left off.

As I mentioned, it’s perfectly natural that your research will have shortcomings and limitations as a result of your chosen design and methodology. No piece of research is flawless. Therefore, a good dissertation defense is not about arguing that your work is perfect, but rather it’s about clearly articulating the strengths and weaknesses of your approach.

To address this question well, you need to think critically about all of the potential weaknesses your design may have, as well as potential responses to these (which could be adopted in future research) to ensure you’re well prepared for this question. For a list of common methodological limitations, check out our video about research limitations here .

#7: How did your findings relate to the existing literature?

This common dissertation defense question links directly to your discussion chapter , where you would have presented and discussed the findings in relation to your literature review.

What your dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to compare your study’s findings to the findings of existing research . Specifically, you need to discuss which findings aligned with existing research and which findings did not. For those findings that contrasted against existing research, you should also explain what you believe to be the reasons for this.

As with many questions in a viva voce, it’s both the what and the why that matter here. So, you need to think deeply about what the underlying reasons may be for both the similarities and differences between your findings and those of similar studies.

#8: What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?

This question is similar to the last one in that it too focuses on your research findings. However, here the focus is specifically on the findings that directly relate to your research questions (as opposed to findings in general).

So, a good way to prepare for this question is to step back and revisit your research questions . Ask yourself the following:

• What exactly were you asking in those questions, and what did your research uncover concerning them?
• Which questions were well answered by your study and which ones were lacking?
• Why were they lacking and what more could be done to address this in future research?

Conquering this part dissertation defense requires that you focus squarely on the research questions. Your study will have provided many findings (hopefully!), and not all of these will link directly to the research questions. Therefore, you need to clear your mind of all of the fascinating side paths your study may have lead you down and regain a clear focus on the research questions .

#9: Were there any findings that surprised you?

This question is two-pronged.

First, you should discuss the surprising findings that were directly related to the original research questions . Going into your research, you likely had some expectations in terms of what you would find, so this is your opportunity to discuss the outcomes that emerged as contrary to what you initially expected. You’ll also want to think about what the reasons for these contrasts may be.

Second, you should discuss the findings that weren’t directly related to the research questions, but that emerged from the data set . You may have a few or you may have none – although generally there are a handful of interesting musings that you can glean from the data set. Again, make sure you can articulate why you find these interesting and what it means for future research in the area.

What the committee is looking for in this type of question is your ability to interpret the findings holistically and comprehensively , and to respond to unexpected data. So, take the time to zoom out and reflect on your findings thoroughly.

#10: What biases may exist in your research?

Biases… we all have them.

For this question, you’ll need to think about potential biases in your research , in the data itself but also in your interpretation of the data. With this question, your committee is assessing whether you have considered your own potential biases and the biases inherent in your analysis approach (i.e. your methodology). So, think carefully about these research biases and be ready to explain how these may exist in your study.

In an oral defense, this question is often followed up with a question on how the biases were mitigated or could be mitigated in future research. So, give some thought not just to what biases may exist, but also the mitigation measures (in your own study and for future research).

#11: How can your findings be put into practice?

Another classic question in the typical viva voce.

With this question, your committee is assessing your ability to bring your findings back down to earth and demonstrate their practical value and application. Importantly, this question is not about the contribution to academia or the overall field of research (we’ll get to that next) – it is specifically asking about how this newly created knowledge can be used in the real world.

Naturally, the actionability of your findings will vary depending on the nature of your research topic. Some studies will produce many action points and some won’t. If you’re researching marketing strategies within an industry, for example, you should be able to make some very specific recommendations for marketing practitioners in that industry.

To help you flesh out points for this question, look back at your original justification for the research (i.e. in your introduction and literature review chapters). What were the driving forces that led you to research your specific topic? That justification should help you identify ways in which your findings can be put into practice.

#12: How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?

While the previous question was aimed at practical contribution, this question is aimed at theoretical contribution . In other words, what is the significance of your study within the current body of research? How does it fit into the existing research and what does it add to it?

This question is often asked by a field specialist and is used to assess whether you’re able to place your findings into the research field to critically convey what your research contributed. This argument needs to be well justified – in other words, you can’t just discuss what your research contributed, you need to also back each proposition up with a strong why .

To answer this question well, you need to humbly consider the quality and impact of your work and to be realistic in your response. You don’t want to come across as arrogant (“my work is groundbreaking”), nor do you want to undersell the impact of your work. So, it’s important to strike the right balance between realistic and pessimistic .

This question also opens the door to questions about potential future research . So, think about what future research opportunities your study has created and which of these you feel are of the highest priority.

#13: If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

This question is often used to wrap up a viva voce as it brings the discussion full circle.

Here, your committee is again assessing your ability to clearly identify and articulate the limitations and shortcomings of your research, both in terms of research design and topic focus . Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been better to use a different analysis method or data set. Perhaps the research questions should have leaned in a slightly different direction. And so on.

This question intends to assess whether you’re able to look at your work critically , assess where the weaknesses are and make recommendations for the future. This question often sets apart those who did the research purely because it was required, from those that genuinely engaged with their research. So, don’t hold back here – reflect on your entire research journey ask yourself how you’d do things differently if you were starting with a  blank canvas today.

Recap: The 13 Key Dissertation Defense Questions

To recap, here are the 13 questions you need to be ready for to ace your dissertation or thesis oral defense:

As I mentioned, this list of dissertation defense questions is certainly not exhaustive – don’t assume that we’ve covered every possible question here. However, these questions are quite likely to come up in some shape or form in a typical dissertation or thesis defense, whether it’s for a Master’s degree, PhD or any other research degree. So, you should take the time to make sure you can answer them well.

If you need assistance preparing for your dissertation defense or viva voce, get in touch with us to discuss 1-on-1 coaching. We can critically review your research and identify potential issues and responses, as well as undertake a mock oral defense to prepare you for the pressures and stresses on the day.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

12 Comments

Very interesting

Interesting. I appreciate!

Really appreciating

My field is International Trade

Interesting

This is a full course on defence. I was fabulously enlightened and I gained enough confidence for my upcoming Masters Defence.

There are many lessons to learn and the simplicity in presentationmakes thee reader say “YesI can”

This is so helping… it has Enlightened me on how to answer specific questions. I pray to make it through for my upcoming defense

Lovely to hear that 🙂

Really educative and beneficial

Interesting. On-point and elaborate. And comforting too! Thanks.

Thank you very much for the enlightening me, be blessed

Thankyou so much. I am planning to defend my thesis soon and I found this very useful

Very interesting and useful to all masters and PhD students

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to prepare your viva opening speech

A viva, or PhD thesis defence, typically starts with an opening speech by the PhD candidate. This opening speech can be prepared in advance. How? By following six simple steps that take you from checking university requirements, to structuring and practising your viva opening speech.

What is a viva opening speech?

Step 1: check the requirements for your viva opening speech, step 2: define the audience for your viva opening speech, step 3: develop key messages for your viva opening speech, step 4: structure your viva opening speech, step 5: create visual support for your viva opening speech, step 6: practice your viva opening speech.

Submitting a PhD thesis feels like a major milestone. And it is! But before being able to call themselves a ‘doctor’, most PhD students have to defend their thesis. And this thesis defence, or viva, tends to start with an opening speech.

A viva opening speech is a short presentation of the PhD thesis by the PhD candidate. It typically lasts between 10 and 30 minutes and kicks off the PhD defence during which the candidate has to answer questions from the examiners.

Questions from examiners are relatively unpredictable. A viva opening speech, however, can be prepared and practised in advance! Therefore, it constitutes a major part of getting reading for a PhD thesis defence.

Different universities have (sometimes vastly) different requirements for viva opening speeches. So, unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all advice.

Therefore, the first step to preparing a viva opening speech should always be to find out the specific regulations of your university.

Common factors to consider are the following:

• The length of the viva opening speech. Whether you have to prepare a 10-minute or a 30-minutes presentation matters considerably.
• The use of a (PowerPoint) presentation. Some universities require presentation slides. Others don’t. Make sure to follow all requirements or customary standards.
• The focus of the speech. Some universities explicitly ask for a summary of the whole PhD thesis. Others may prefer several key findings, or arguments to kick off the discussion.
• The target audience of the speech. Find out who you are supposed to address in your speech. More on this in Step 2!

Some information is easy to find. Some isn’t. Always talk to your PhD supervisor/s! PhD supervisors will know about the university requirements, can share their experiences and guide you in the right direction.

Once you are aware of your university’s regulation concerning viva opening speeches, it is smart to think a bit more about the target audience of your speech.

The target audience for your viva opening speech will influence the level of detail in your presentation, the complexity of the information, and the language and terminology you will use.

In the UK, for instance, the thesis defence usually involves only the examiners and the candidate. Thus, the viva opening speech will be directed at the examiners, who have all read the PhD thesis in advance and are experts in the candidate’s research field.

In contrast, in the Netherlands, for instance, PhD defences are public events. Viva opening speeches during these public events are used to share the focus of the thesis in simple language with the audience. The audience is usually family, friends and colleagues. Examiners are not even present during the speech.

Now it is time to brainstorm about the content of your viva opening speech! One harsh truth is that you simply cannot include everything. Summarising the work of 3, 4 or more years in a few minutes is incredibly challenging. You have to be selective. You have to summarise, abstract and prioritise.

The key messages for your viva opening speech should be in line with the nature of your PhD thesis. For those who have read your PhD thesis in advance, the content of your viva opening speech should not come as a surprise.

For instance, if you wrote a very theoretical PhD thesis, it makes no sense to focus your whole speech on your data collection and analysis. Instead, it makes more sense to emphasise the theoretical contributions of your PhD.

Next up, you should structure your viva opening speech: Breaking up the key messages into concrete parts helps you to develop a logic and convincing storyline.

Common ways to structure viva presentations are around the table of contents of the PhD thesis, around key findings, key arguments, or around case studies.

Finding the right structure for your opening speech is so important that I wrote a whole post on how to structure your viva presentation, including examples of different viva presentation structures .

As in every speech or presentation, visual support can be helpful. Therefore, if you are allowed to use PowerPoint slides or other forms of visual support for your viva opening speech, it is sensible to make use of this opportunity.

As with regular presentations, avoid too much text on slides. Instead, make strategic use of images, photographs, figures or diagrams to develop your storyline and bring your points across.

Finally, practice your viva opening speech! If your target audience is the thesis examiners, present your speech to your supervisor/s or fellow PhD students. Ask them for feedback and use it to improve your speech.

If the target audience is the general public, present to family members or friends outside of academia. Do they understand what you are talking about? Can they follow your storyline?

You should practice your viva opening speech up to the point that you can present freely, without reading from your notes. However, don’t learn the whole speech by heart. It is always noticeable if someone just recites text, and it will make you sound like a robot.

Lastly, when you practice make sure to keep a timer at hand. Most viva opening speeches have to adhere to a strict time limitation, and will simply be cut off if they exceed the given time. You don’t want this to happen on your big day! So make sure to practice sticking to your time.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Planning your PhD research: A 3-year PhD timeline example

All you need to know about career objectives on phd resumes, related articles.

Better thesis writing with the Pomodoro® technique

Left your dissertation too late? Ways to take action now

Getting the most out of thesis supervision meetings

Dealing with conflicting feedback from different supervisors

• Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
• Contact us:
• +1 (213) 221-0069
• [email protected]

Thesis Defense Steps: Full Guide How to Prepare and Present

How To Prepare For Your Thesis Defense

If you are conducting post-graduate research within your discipline, you will come across the phrase “thesis defense”. A thesis defense is part of the things you will need to accomplish before acquiring a postgraduate degree. 

The thesis defense comes at the end of the graduate program. It is used to determine or define your education milestone while in the university. For this, you need a thesis defense comprehensive guide to be outstanding.

You should do a thesis defense after you have completed the course work and attended practicum or internship programs.

People Also Read: Thesis vs Hypothesis vs Theory: the Differences and examples

How Long does a Thesis Defense Take?

On average, a thesis defense takes somewhere between 30 minutes and one hour. However, the time it takes to do a thesis defense depends on the academic level you are in.

While there is no standard or general length for a thesis defense, post-graduate sessions will take longer compared to undergraduate sessions.

Yes, some institutions, professors, or some disciplines may require you to do a thesis defense at your undergraduate level. But the length of the presentation depends on your academic level.

What is Thesis Defense?

A thesis defense is an act of presenting your academic work to a panel or committee of professors and other involved scholars. From this, they can gauge or grade your abilities in presenting your work.

The arguments presented during the thesis defense are to ascertain that you have understood the course and your selected topic.

You will have to first hand in your work or paper to the professor for grading. Thereafter, you will be summoned for thesis defense.

When summoned for a thesis defense, you will be required to answer all the questions presented to you by the panel of professors. After this, you will be required to leave the room. The panel is to decide whether your paper or thesis is ready for publication. In addition, the panel checks whether your work needs corrections. 

In other words, a thesis defense is a forum that allows postgraduate students to defend the topic of their thesis before a panel of professors. Therefore, the thesis defense is part of the requirements that postgraduate students must accomplish to receive advanced degrees in whichever academic disciplines they pursue. 

People Also Read: Subtopic in a Research Paper: How to Write Subtopics Well

Factors that Determine the Length of a Thesis Defense

Just like a dissertation that you have to write a thesis , it is important that you will have to present it. The time is taken to do this varies. The following four factors determine the length of a thesis defense

• As noted earlier, the level of education will determine the length of your thesis defense.
• The second factor is the institutional requirements. Some institutions will have a specified amount of time allocated for a thesis defense. In some institutions, that time is longer than and vice versa.

Very recognized institutions of higher learning will have the autonomy to decide on the length of a thesis defense.

• The third factor that will determine the length of a thesis defense is the consensus of the panel of professors. Some will give students very limited time to do a thesis defense while others will give more time to their students.

Some institutions, scholars, applaud limiting the amount of time for thesis defense and educators because it gauges the student’s ability to accurately defend their work within a short time. If they succeed, then they are good learners.

• Another factor determining the time of a thesis defense is the academic discipline that is explored by the topic.

While every academic discipline deserves respect, they are not the same in terms of the complexity of the concepts and what the student covers.

Some disciplines will require students to come up with much longer papers. This means that the time it could take to do a thesis defense will be longer. 

From the aforementioned factors, it is evident that it would be difficult to predetermine the standard length of a thesis without holding some parameters or factors constant such as the academic level of the thesis. 

Also, the length of your dissertation or thesis determines the time you will take to present it at your defense session. Longer documents will take you longer to defend.

People Also Read: Can you Quote Essay Titles: How to use Quotes as Paper Titles

How to Defend a Thesis – 5 Comprehensive Steps

Some steps can help you defend your thesis effectively. You should follow the steps below if you are summoned by a panel of professors to defend your thesis. 

1. Adequate Preparation

When you are required to defend your thesis, you will be given a specific date you will appear before the panel of professors for the actual exercise.

As long as you have submitted your paper to the professor for grading, you should always be aware that you will have to defend your thesis.

Therefore, between the period of submitting your paper and the date provided for thesis defense, you should do adequate preparation.

Students will have several months to prepare for a thesis defense. This is because the institutions themselves want their students to be well prepared before they meet the panel of professors.

After all, they would wish their students to excel in their studies. As noted, there will be a specified date for the thesis defense. Therefore, it will not surprise their committee members or students when the time comes for defending the thesis. 

Adequate preparation entails knowing or rather anticipating what is required of you. You should be prepared for the kinds of questions your thesis topic will provoke from the panel and practice on them.

When you have the right attitude and have adequately prepared for the thesis defense, it would be nearly impossible to fail. Also, be prepared to wear decently during the defense. 

2. Carry an In-Depth Knowledge of the Thesis

This is a very important step when defending your thesis. Since you are the one who has written the paper, you should be fully aware of the topic and the contents of your paper. What this means is that you should adequately research the topic of your thesis so that you can be ready for any question you are asked by the panel of professors.

For a postgraduate student who wishes to master their discipline, it would be a shame if you do not know about your topic.

For example, if you are within the field of environmental sciences and have written your paper based on the discipline, you should narrow down the scope of your knowledge to that of your topic, the topic of your paper should act as the guide to the amount of knowledge you are supposed to give for the sake of the thesis defense.

Avoid too much knowledge because it may overwhelm you. At the same time, do not narrow down the scope of your topic too much because you will have limited knowledge during the thesis defense.

Your instructor or professor can help you in terms of giving you direction on the type and scope of knowledge you are required to have during a thesis defense. 

3. Prepare an Introduction

Have you ever heard of the first impression and its significance?

The first impression of a person will determine how the other person will perceive them.

If it is terrible, the other person may consider them a terrible person and even dislike them.

An introduction plays the same role as the “first impression” of your thesis defense to the panel of professors.

You should prepare a good introduction that should summarize the contents of your paper, the reasons why you selected the topic and its relevance to the discipline, and any other detail that you will anticipate to be asked during the thesis defense.

Make sure that the thesis is crystal clear and concise to avoid making any contradictions of your topic and confusing the panel.

Since you will be given several months to prepare for your thesis defense, take time to refine your introduction.

Make adjustments or corrections whenever necessary so that you will have a perfect introduction for your thesis defense. You may recite the introduction or carry it with you if the panel will allow it. 

4. Making the Actual Presentation

The action presentation of the thesis defense is quite scary to many students. This is because you will have to face a panel of professors to defend your paper. Based on your paper’s content, you will answer several questions.

Therefore, if you fail during the actual presentation, your paper may not be published and you will have to do further revisions. 

During the actual presentation, you should be well dressed because grooming tells a lot about the character of a student. Carry the necessary equipment you will require during the presentation. Such equipment can include a laptop that contains a PowerPoint presentation, a pen, and a notebook.

The PowerPoint presentation should be legible, objective, and strategically written to maximize the time used to defend your thesis. Ensure that you arrive early to the place where you will face the panel of professors to give you time to reflect and lessen your anxiety.  

As aforementioned, adequate preparation, understanding your topic or thesis, and a good attitude will guarantee success. Therefore, if you adhere to the aforementioned guidelines during the presentation, there is a high probability that your paper will be published. 

5. Do a Good Conclusion

Doing a good introduction and effectively presenting your defense is not enough without an equally good conclusion. Just like you took a good time to write your thesis , you will also need a good time to write a presentation and a good conclusion.

A good conclusion of your presentation leaves the panel of professors with a good impression of you and your overall ability to defend your work within the academic community. 

A good conclusion will sum up your work. What this means is that you should include a summary of the topic’s background, the literature review, the methodologies, the findings, and the discussions. Make sure that the conclusion compresses the details of your paper logically. It should be brief and straight to the point.

Finally, the conclusion of your thesis defense should clearly describe the limitations or setbacks encountered while you were conducting the study.

Even though you are trying to show that you are a good post-graduate student, it is important to be clear about the limitations. This will demonstrate your academic integrity and ability to conduct actual research in the field. 

People Also Read: Essay Reading: Practice and Importance of Reading Essays

Tips on How to do a Good Thesis Defense

1. Anticipate the Questions 

As aforementioned, you should anticipate the questions you may be asked by the panel and prepare for them.

The questions’ base is on your thesis. As such, you should go through your paper and list the possible questions.

At the same time, the academic expertise of the committee members determines the types of questions you may be asked.

Try to have an informed idea, based on your paper, on the areas to receive much focus. 

2. Dress for Success

Do you remember that we have talked about first impressions? Well, your dress code and overall grooming will have a degree of impact on the outcomes of your presentation. Dress well.

Mostly, you are required to dress in an official attire because you are going to do a presentation to a panel of academic experts. You should try as much as possible not to wear casual or provocative clothes. 

3. Delegate

To avoid being overwhelmed during the day of your presentation, you can delegate some of the less complicated activities to a trusted person or friend.

The activities that you can delegate include setting up the equipment you will use for your presentation or distributing handouts to the panel. 

4. Create a Backup Plan

This especially involves the mode of presenting your defense. Since you will be using your laptop and a projector, they may fail during the presentation. It is therefore important to have a plan B. such can include having printed handouts. 

People Also Read: Conclusion Starters: What they are and Examples for Common Essays

FAQs on Thesis Defense

Can you fail a thesis defense.

The answer to this question is yes. Though it is rare, it is possible to fail a thesis defense if you are not adequately prepared and you don’t know much about the topic. This would indicate that you haven’t understood the course or you did not write the paper. You hired someone to do it for you. 

How long is a Ph.D. thesis defense?

A Ph.D. thesis defense is about 2 hours long. However, it may differ from one country to the other.

How long is the master’s thesis presentation?

A master’s thesis is usually one-and-a-half hours long. It takes a lesser time compared to a Ph.D. thesis. 

When not handling complex essays and academic writing tasks, Josh is busy advising students on how to pass assignments. In spare time, he loves playing football or walking with his dog around the park.

Related posts

Is Doing a Dissertation worth It

Is Doing a Dissertation worth It: Benefits of writing it

Optimal Dissertation Length

Dissertation Length: Optimal Length in Words and Pages

Can your Dissertation be a Question

Can a Dissertation be a Question?: How to Choose Good Titles

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

17 Thesis Defense Questions and How to Answer Them

A thesis defense gives you the chance to show off your thesis work and demonstrate your expertise in your field of study. During this one- to two-hour discussion with the members of your thesis committee, you'll have some control over how you present your research, but your committee will ask you some prodding questions to test your knowledge and preparedness. They will all have read your thesis beforehand, so their questions will relate to your study, topic, methods, data sample, and other aspects.

A good defense requires mastery of the thesis itself, so before you consider the questions you might face,

1. What is your topic, and why did you choose it?

Give a quick summary in just a few sentences on what you've researched. You could certainly go on for hours about your work, but make sure you prepare a way to give a very brief overview of your thesis. Then, give a quick background on your process for choosing this topic.

2. How does your topic contribute to the existing literature? How is it important?

Many researchers identify a need in the field and choose a topic to bridge the gaps that previous literature has failed to cover. For example, previous studies might not have included a certain population, region, or circumstance. Talk about how your thesis enhances the general understanding of the topic to extend the reach beyond what others have found, and then give examples of why the world needs that increased understanding. For instance, a thesis on romaine lettuce crops in desert climates might bring much-needed knowledge to a region that might not have been represented in previous work.

3. What are the key findings of your study?

When reporting your main results, make sure you have a handle on how detailed your committee wants you to be. Give yourself several options by preparing 1) a very general, quick summary of your findings that takes a minute or less, 2) a more detailed rundown of what your study revealed that is 3-5 minutes long, and 3) a 10- to 15-minute synopsis that delves into your results in detail. With each of these responses prepared, you can gauge which one is most appropriate in the moment, based on what your committee asks you and what has already been requested.

4. What type of background research did you do for your study?

Here you'll describe what you did while you were deciding what to study. This usually includes a literary review to determine what previous researchers have already introduced to the field. You also likely had to look into whether your study was going to be possible and what you would need in order to collect the needed data. Did you need info from databases that require permissions or fees?

5. What was your hypothesis, and how did you form it?

Describe the expected results you had for your study and whether your hypothesis came from previous research experience, long-held expectations, or cultural myths.

6. What limitations did you face when writing your text?

It's inevitable — researchers will face roadblocks or limiting factors during their work. This could be a limited population you had access to, like if you had a great method of surveying university students, but you didn't have a way to reach out to other people who weren't attending that school.

7. Why did you choose your particular method for your study?

Different research methods are more fitting to specific studies than others (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative ), and knowing this, you applied a method that would present your findings most effectively. What factors led you to choose your method?

8. Who formed the sample group of your study, and why did you choose this population?

Many factors go into the selection of a participant group. Perhaps you were motivated to survey women over 50 who experience burnout in the workplace. Did you take extra measures to target this population? Or perhaps you found a sample group that responded more readily to your request for participation, and after hitting dead ends for months, convenience is what shaped your study population. Make sure to present your reasoning in an honest but favorable way.

9. What obstacles or limitations did you encounter while working with your sample?

Outline the process of pursuing respondents for your study and the difficulties you faced in collecting enough quality data for your thesis. Perhaps the decisions you made took shape based on the participants you ended up interviewing.

10. Was there something specific you were expecting to find during your analysis?

Expectations are natural when you set out to explore a topic, especially one you've been dancing around throughout your academic career. This question can refer to your hypotheses , but it can also touch on your personal feelings and expectations about this topic. What did you believe you would find when you dove deeper into the subject? Was that what you actually found, or were you surprised by your results?

11. What did you learn from your study?

Your response to this question can include not only the basic findings of your work (if you haven't covered this already) but also some personal surprises you might have found that veered away from your expectations. Sometimes these details are not included in the thesis, so these details can add some spice to your defense.

12. What are the recommendations from your study?

With connection to the reasons you chose the topic, your results can address the problems your work is solving. Give specifics on how policymakers, professionals in the field, etc., can improve their service with the knowledge your thesis provides.

13. If given the chance, what would you do differently?

Your response to this one can include the limitations you encountered or dead ends you hit that wasted time and funding. Try not to dwell too long on the annoyances of your study, and consider an area of curiosity; for example, discuss an area that piqued your interest during your exploration that would have been exciting to pursue but didn't directly benefit your outlined study.

14. How did you relate your study to the existing theories in the literature?

Your paper likely ties your ideas into those of other researchers, so this could be an easy one to answer. Point out how similar your work is to some and how it contrasts other works of research; both contribute greatly to the overall body of research.

15. What is the future scope of this study?

This one is pretty easy, since most theses include recommendations for future research within the text. That means you already have this one covered, and since you read over your thesis before your defense, it's already fresh in your mind.

16. What do you plan to do professionally after you complete your study?

This is a question directed more to you and your future professional plans. This might align with the research you performed, and if so, you can direct your question back to your research, maybe mentioning the personal motivations you have for pursuing study of that subject.

17. Do you have any questions?

Although your thesis defense feels like an interrogation, and you're the one in the spotlight, it provides an ideal opportunity to gather input from your committee, if you want it. Possible questions you could ask are: What were your impressions when reading my thesis? Do you believe I missed any important steps or details when conducting my work? Where do you see this work going in the future?

Bonus tip: What if you get asked a question to which you don't know the answer? You can spend weeks preparing to defend your thesis, but you might still be caught off guard when you don't know exactly what's coming. You can be ready for this situation by preparing a general strategy. It's okay to admit that your thesis doesn't offer the answers to everything – your committee won't reasonably expect it to do so. What you can do to sound (and feel!) confident and knowledgeable is to refer to a work of literature you have encountered in your research and draw on that work to give an answer. For example, you could respond, "My thesis doesn't directly address your question, but my study of Dr. Leifsen's work provided some interesting insights on that subject…." By preparing a way to address curveball questions, you can maintain your cool and create the impression that you truly are an expert in your field.

After you're done answering the questions your committee presents to you, they will either approve your thesis or suggest changes you should make to your paper. Regardless of the outcome, your confidence in addressing the questions presented to you will communicate to your thesis committee members that you know your stuff. Preparation can ease a lot of anxiety surrounding this event, so use these possible questions to make sure you can present your thesis feeling relaxed, prepared, and confident.

Header image by Kasto .

Related Posts

Understanding the Different Types of Research Methods

How to Start an Academic Blog

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Take your thesis to new heights with our expert editing

How to Prepare for the Oral Defense of Your Thesis/Dissertation

© Paul T. P. Wong , Ph.D., C.Psych.,  Former Research Director, Graduate Program in Counselling Psychology, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada

Use the following steps when preparing for the oral defense of your thesis/dissertation.

1. Evaluation of oral examination is based on your presentation and your answers to questions from the examining committee.

2. Be well prepared for your presentation—academically, mentally and physically. Try to be well rested and focused before your oral defense.

3. In your preparation, don’t try to memorize all the studies cited in your thesis, but you do need to know the details of the few key studies that form the basis of your investigation.

4. You need to be familiar with larger issues, such as the basic assumptions, theoretical framework, paradigm, cross-cultural perspectives, Christian integration, etc.

5. More importantly, you need to have a deep understanding of the nature of your research problem and the major issues involved.

6. You may bring with you important materials for easy reference in the course of your defense; these may include key articles, computer print-outs of results, etc.

7. Your presentation is evaluated in terms of content and clarity as well as style.

8. Don’t speak too fast and don’t read from your notes.

9. Treat your presentation as a public address because there may be non-psychologists present at your defense. Therefore, don’t use too many jargons and don’t pack it with details. You need to tell people in simple, concise language:

• What you did,
• Why you did it,
• How you did it,
• What you found, and
• What the results mean.

10. Prepare handouts or power-points. Typically, they should include

• An overview or outline of your presentation,
• Introduction (including research question, rationale and hypothesis, if any, and definition of key constructs),
• Method (including design, methodology, sample, instruments or questionnaires, and procedure,
• Results (including tables or figures summarizing your findings), and
• Discussion (including reasons for new or unexpected findings, contributions and limitations, and practical implications).

11. Make sure that you space yourself well. Don’t spend too much time on one section. For example, you should not spend more than 5 minutes on introduction, since you are allowed only 20 minutes for your presentation.

12. Most of the questions are rather general and broad, dealing with substantial methodological, theoretical and application issues. However, some questions focus on specific points regarding sampling, statistical analysis, or some questionable conclusions.

13. Be prepared to clarify or elaborate on your assumptions, theoretical positions, methods, and conclusions. Often, an examiner plays the devil’s advocate to see how well you can think on your feet and defend yourself.

14. Occasionally, an examiner may ask a question which is unfair or cannot be adequately answered. After a few futile attempts, feel free to say that you don’t know the answer. You may even be bold enough to say, “Since none of my answers are acceptable, I would really appreciate it if you could give me some pointers or tell me what would be a correct answer.”

15. Here are some common questions:

• If you were to do it all over again, what changes would you make?
• What specific aspects of your findings can be utilized by counselors or psychologists in their practice?
• What is the most important contribution of your thesis? Can you say it in one or two sentences?
• What are some of the competing hypotheses? Could you think of an alternative interpretation of your findings?

16. Don’t rush to any answers. It is perfectly acceptable to think for a couple of seconds, or ask if you are on the right track. If you are not clear about the question, you are entitled to ask for clarification.

17. Try to be concise and to the point, but at the same time demonstrate that you have a good grasp of the complex issues involved. In other words, do not give superficial answers, but at the same time, do not go all over the map.

18. Put up a good defense without being defensive. Be confident without being cocky. A good defense means that you can provide strong logical arguments as well as empirical support o defend your position or conclusion. However, don’t be defensive when people criticize your study. If they are able to point out some real flaws or weaknesses in your study, accept their criticisms with humility, grace and gratitude.

19. Before the oral defense, talk to your advisor about areas of concerns based on external examiner’s comments. Then, discuss with your advisor how to best address these concerns. (Your advisor cannot tell you the specific questions the examiners will ask, but s/he can direct your attention to issues or areas that require some thinking or additional research.)

20. After the oral defense, meet with your advisor for debriefing and seek advice on how to revise your thesis.

• President’s Annual Report 2023: Founder’s Vision and Last Wishes
• Editorial: A New Science of Suffering, Existential Intelligence, and the New Behavioral Economics of Happiness—Toward a General Theory of Wellbeing
• Meaning-Centered Positive Education (PE 2.0) Based on the New Paradigm of Existential Positive Psychology (EPP)
• What is the meaning of suffering?

13 Tips to Prepare for Your PhD Dissertation Defense

How well do you know your project? Years of experiments, analysis of results, and tons of literature study, leads you to how well you know your research study. And, PhD dissertation defense is a finale to your PhD years. Often, researchers question how to excel at their thesis defense and spend countless hours on it. Days, weeks, months, and probably years of practice to complete your doctorate, needs to surpass the dissertation defense hurdle.

In this article, we will discuss details of how to excel at PhD dissertation defense and list down some interesting tips to prepare for your thesis defense.

Table of Contents

What Is Dissertation Defense?

Dissertation defense or Thesis defense is an opportunity to defend your research study amidst the academic professionals who will evaluate of your academic work. While a thesis defense can sometimes be like a cross-examination session, but in reality you need not fear the thesis defense process and be well prepared.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/c/JamesHaytonPhDacademy

What are the expectations of committee members.

Choosing the dissertation committee is one of the most important decision for a research student. However, putting your dissertation committee becomes easier once you understand the expectations of committee members.

The basic function of your dissertation committee is to guide you through the process of proposing, writing, and revising your dissertation. Moreover, the committee members serve as mentors, giving constructive feedback on your writing and research, also guiding your revision efforts.

The dissertation committee is usually formed once the academic coursework is completed. Furthermore, by the time you begin your dissertation research, you get acquainted to the faculty members who will serve on your dissertation committee. Ultimately, who serves on your dissertation committee depends upon you.

Some universities allow an outside expert (a former professor or academic mentor) to serve on your committee. It is advisable to choose a faculty member who knows you and your research work.

How to Choose a Dissertation Committee Member?

• Avoid popular and eminent faculty member
• Choose the one you know very well and can approach whenever you need them
• A faculty member whom you can learn from is apt.
• Members of the committee can be your future mentors, co-authors, and research collaborators. Choose them keeping your future in mind.

How to Prepare for Dissertation Defense?

1. Start Your Preparations Early

Thesis defense is not a 3 or 6 months’ exercise. Don’t wait until you have completed all your research objectives. Start your preparation well in advance, and make sure you know all the intricacies of your thesis and reasons to all the research experiments you conducted.

2. Attend Presentations by Other Candidates

Look out for open dissertation presentations at your university. In fact, you can attend open dissertation presentations at other universities too. Firstly, this will help you realize how thesis defense is not a scary process. Secondly, you will get the tricks and hacks on how other researchers are defending their thesis. Finally, you will understand why dissertation defense is necessary for the university, as well as the scientific community.

3. Take Enough Time to Prepare the Slides

Dissertation defense process harder than submitting your thesis well before the deadline. Ideally, you could start preparing the slides after finalizing your thesis. Spend more time in preparing the slides. Make sure you got the right data on the slides and rephrase your inferences, to create a logical flow to your presentation.

4. Structure the Presentation

Do not be haphazard in designing your presentation. Take time to create a good structured presentation. Furthermore, create high-quality slides which impresses the committee members. Make slides that hold your audience’s attention. Keep the presentation thorough and accurate, and use smart art to create better slides.

5. Practice Breathing Techniques

Watch a few TED talk videos and you will notice that speakers and orators are very fluent at their speech. In fact, you will not notice them taking a breath or falling short of breath. The only reason behind such effortless oratory skill is practice — practice in breathing technique.

Moreover, every speaker knows how to control their breath. Long and steady breaths are crucial. Pay attention to your breathing and slow it down. All you need I some practice prior to this moment.

6. Create an Impactful Introduction

The audience expects a lot from you. So your opening statement should enthrall the audience. Furthermore, your thesis should create an impact on the members; they should be thrilled by your thesis and the way you expose it.

The introduction answers most important questions, and most important of all “Is this presentation worth the time?” Therefore, it is important to make a good first impression , because the first few minutes sets the tone for your entire presentation.

7. Maintain Your Own List of Questions

While preparing for the presentation, make a note of all the questions that you ask yourself. Try to approach all the questions from a reader’s point of view. You could pretend like you do not know the topic and think of questions that could help you know the topic much better.

The list of questions will prepare you for the questions the members may pose while trying to understand your research. Attending other candidates’ open discussion will also help you assume the dissertation defense questions.

8. Practice Speech and Body Language

After successfully preparing your slides and practicing, you could start focusing on how you look while presenting your thesis. This exercise is not for your appearance but to know your body language and relax if need be.

Pay attention to your body language. Stand with your back straight, but relax your shoulders. The correct posture will give you the feel of self-confidence. So, observe yourself in the mirror and pay attention to movements you make.

9. Give Mock Presentation

Giving a trial defense in advance is a good practice. The most important factor for the mock defense is its similarity to your real defense, so that you get the experience that prepares for the actual defense.

10. Learn How to Handle Mistakes

Everyone makes mistakes. However, it is important to carry on. Do not let the mistakes affect your thesis defense. Take a deep breath and move on to the next point.

11. Do Not Run Through the Presentation

If you are nervous, you would want to end the presentation as soon as possible. However, this situation will give rise to anxiety and you will speak too fast, skipping the essential details. Eventually, creating a fiasco of your dissertation defense .

12. Get Plenty of Rest

Out of the dissertation defense preparation points, this one is extremely important. Obviously, sleeping a day before your big event is hard, but you have to focus and go to bed early, with the clear intentions of getting the rest you deserve.

13. Visualize Yourself Defending Your Thesis

This simple exercise creates an immense impact on your self-confidence. All you have to do is visualize yourself giving a successful presentation each evening before going to sleep. Everyday till the day of your thesis defense, see yourself standing in front of the audience and going from one point to another.

This exercise takes a lot of commitment and persistence, but the results in the end are worth it. Visualization makes you see yourself doing the scary thing of defending your thesis.

If you have taken all these points into consideration, you are ready for your big day. You have worked relentlessly for your PhD degree , and you will definitely give your best in this final step.

Have you completed your thesis defense? How did you prepare for it and how was your experience throughout your dissertation defense ? Do write to us or comment below.

The tips are very useful.I will recomend it to our students.

Excellent. As a therapist trying to help a parent of a candidate, I am very impressed and thankful your concise, clear, action-oriented article. Thank you.

Thanks for your sharing. It is so good. I can learn a lot from your ideas. Hope that in my dissertation defense next time I can pass

The tips are effective. Will definitely apply them in my dissertation.

My dissertation defense is coming up in less than two weeks from now, I find this tips quite instructive, I’ll definitely apply them. Thank you so much.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Facing Difficulty Writing an Academic Essay? — Here is your one-stop solution!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

How to greet the audience at the beginning of a PhD defense talk/presentation?

1 expert answer.

Jeremiah J. answered • 04/11/19

Science Communication Advisor specializing in Oral Presentations

First off, congratulations on reaching your defense! You did something not many people get to do (including me), so take some time to feel excited in-between feeling nervous.

There are standard ways to begin a talk, and generally, these aren't bad to memorize. For one, having a low-impact (and brief) start to your presentation memorized will let you look away from your computer and out at the audience. You'll be able to make eye contact with your colleagues, friends, and maybe family, and use their delight and smiles to boost your mood.

So something like, "My name is [______], and welcome to my thesis defense. So thank you to my committee [take a second to look them each in the eyes as you say it], my friends [find them in the audience and smile at them], and colleagues [same thing here] for coming here and finding this room. Thank you for your support and your attendance. I'm here to tell you about the results of my research over the last [five, six, or seven] years of my life. So without any further ado, let me begin."

(and then you can begin)

From the defenses that I went to, people waited to name specific names at the end of their talk in a sort of pre-question acknowledgement section. So that's when you can pull out the specific titles and names of your committee members. Starting with the general acknowledgement keeps it short, but it also gives you a moment to collect yourself that should (in my experience) make the whole presentation go easier.

In the end, think about what you said about remembering the beginning of your colleagues' defenses: you didn't remember. In other words, you can't mess this up! People are there to celebrate with you -- even if your committee still has the final say -- so try and keep that in mind.

Good luck, and have fun. Congratulations again!

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Get a free answer to a quick problem. Most questions answered within 4 hours.

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.

RELATED TOPICS

Related questions, which statement below accurately illustrates dual coding as it relates to the use of sensory aids.

Answers · 2

Can you give me a powerful hook regarding the topic "Increase in Tuition Fees?

Answers · 3

i need help choosing a topic for my speech

Answers · 7

business speaking

Answers · 1

why don't I have any friends?

Recommended tutors.

Mary Ann M.

find an online tutor

• Speech tutors
• Extemporaneous Speaking tutors
• Public Speaking tutors
• Dissertation Writing tutors
• Language Arts tutors
• Marketing tutors
• Sign Language tutors
• Image Processing tutors

related lessons

• Need help with something else? Try one of our lessons.
• Need help with something else? Try searching for a tutor.

Upcoming Thesis Defenses

News from the School

From public servant to public health student

Exploring the intersection of health, mindfulness, and climate change

Conference aims to help experts foster health equity

Building solidarity to face global injustice

• 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