By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor Jeff Landry recently announced that Woodside Energy has awarded a substantial $300 million contract to Louisiana’s own Green Tug Towing. This significant agreement will see the construction of four new tugboats, with the work to be carried out at C&C Marine and Repair. The tugboats are destined for use in Woodside Energy’s Louisiana LNG project, marking a considerable investment in local industry and infrastructure.
Read the original article here
Governor Jeff Landry of Louisiana, in a recent appearance on “60 Minutes,” found himself defending the state’s newly drawn congressional maps, a process widely expected to diminish the number of majority-Black districts. His central argument, echoing a familiar refrain, is that “no one gets extra rights” in the United States. This assertion, however, has sparked considerable debate, with critics arguing that the redistricting effort itself demonstrably grants certain groups greater influence, effectively conferring “extra rights” through political power.
Landry’s defense centered on the idea of universal equality, suggesting that the nation has made significant strides since the Civil Rights era, pointing to the presidencies of Barack Obama and the election of numerous minority candidates as evidence of progress. He questioned the ongoing narrative that Louisiana is inherently racist or unwilling to elect Black individuals, stating his disagreement with such a premise and framing it as a “failed narrative.”
When pressed by “60 Minutes” host Cecelia Vega on the concerns of Black residents who feel their experiences are best understood by those who share them, Landry countered with a personal anecdote. He described his own upbringing in a predominantly Black town, implying a shared experience that transcended racial lines. He then broadened the discussion, posing the question of whether it was fair to judge someone based on their race, be it White, Hispanic, or Indian, suggesting a parallel to the plea for equal consideration regardless of one’s background.
However, many observers find this framing deeply problematic. The argument that the election of a Black president signifies a post-racial society, they contend, overlooks the persistent, and in some instances, increased, instances of racism and obstructionism faced by minority leaders. The notion that the current redistricting effort upholds the principle of “no one gets extra rights” is directly challenged by data indicating Louisiana’s Black population is approximately 32.6%. Based on this demographic, a fair representation would suggest at least two majority-Black congressional districts out of the state’s six.
The act of redrawing maps to eliminate existing majority-Black districts is seen by critics as a deliberate attempt to dilute the voting power of Black communities, thereby granting white voters, particularly conservative suburbanites, a disproportionate level of control. This, they argue, is the very definition of conferring extra rights – not in terms of individual liberties, but in terms of political efficacy and representation. The historical struggle for representation, particularly the war against England over a lack of it, is invoked to highlight the fundamental importance of ensuring all voices are heard and all votes carry meaningful weight.
The critique extends to the inherent contradiction in Landry’s statement. If “no one gets extra rights,” why is there a push to reduce the representation of a specific demographic, a move that effectively diminishes their rights to representation? This is compared to analogies where individuals may not see their own rights as “extra” until someone else is granted the same, leading to a perception of unfair advantage. The underlying sentiment expressed by many is that the governor’s defense ignores the systemic disadvantages that minority groups have historically faced and continue to face, which prevent them from fully exercising their fundamental rights.
The governor’s assertion of a post-racial society, exemplified by the election of a Black president, is seen as disingenuous by those who experienced or witnessed the intense racial prejudice and political opposition Obama faced. The argument that rectifying past injustices is itself a form of special treatment is also a point of contention. Critics argue that without actively addressing historical discrimination, true equality remains elusive, and the very act of preventing equal representation is a perpetuation of injustice, not its rectification.
Ultimately, Governor Landry’s defense of Louisiana’s redistricting on “60 Minutes” hinges on the principle of equal rights. Yet, the actions taken in redrawing the maps are widely interpreted as undermining that very principle, by strategically diminishing the voting power of a significant minority population and thereby granting an unequal advantage to another demographic. The debate, therefore, is not about whether individuals should have “extra rights,” but rather whether the current redistricting plan ensures that all citizens have an equal opportunity to exercise their fundamental right to representation.