persuasive essay for pathos

Table of Contents

Ai, ethics & human agency, collaboration, information literacy, writing process, using pathos in persuasive writing.

• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 by Angela Eward-Mangione - Hillsborough Community College

Incorporating appeals to pathos into persuasive writing increases a writer’s chances of achieving his or her purpose. Read “ Pathos ” to define and understand pathos and methods for appealing to it. The following brief article discusses examples of these appeals in persuasive writing.

An important key to incorporating pathos into your persuasive writing effectively is appealing to your audience’s commonly held emotions. To do this, one must be able to identify common emotions, as well as understand what situations typically evoke such emotions. The blog post “ The 10 Most Common Feelings Worldwide, We Feel Fine ,” offers an interview with Seth Kamvar, co-author of We Feel Fine. According to the post, the 10 most commonly held emotions in 2006-2009 were: better, bad, good, guilty, sorry, sick, well, comfortable, great, and happy (qtd. in Whelan).

Let’s take a look at some potential essay topics, what emotions they might evoke, and what methods can be used to appeal to those emotions.

Example: Animal Cruelty

Related Emotions:

Method Narrative

In “To Kill a Chicken,” Nicholas Kristof describes footage taken by an undercover investigator for Mercy with Animals at a North Carolina poultry slaughterhouse: “some chickens aren’t completely knocked out by the electric current and can be seen struggling frantically. Others avoid the circular saw somehow. A backup worker is supposed to cut the throat of those missed by the saw, but any that get by him are scalded alive, the investigator said” (Kristof).

This narrative account, which creates a cruel picture in readers’ minds, will evoke anger, horror, sadness, and sympathy.

Example: Human Trafficking

• Sadness (sorry)
• Sympathy 

Method: Direct Quote

“From Victim to Impassioned Voice” provides the perspective of Asia Graves, a victim of a vicious child prostitution ring who attributes her survival to a group of women: “If I didn’t have those strong women, I’d be nowhere” (McKin).

A quote from a victim of human trafficking humanizes the topic, eliciting sadness and sympathy for the victim(s).

Example: Cyberbullying

Method: empathy for an opposing view.

The concerns of some people who oppose the criminalization of cyberbullying are understandable. For example, Justin W. Patchin, coauthor of Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying , opposes making cyberbullying a crime because he views the federal and state governments’ role as one to educate local school districts and provide resources for them (“Cyberbullying”). Patchin does not oppose cyberbullying itself; rather, he takes issue with the government responding to it through criminalization.

Identifying and articulating the opposing view as well as the concerns that underpin it helps the audience experience a full range of sympathy, a commonly held emotion, as a consequence of sincerely investigating and acknowledging another view.

The method a writer uses to persuade emotionally his or her audience will depend on the situation. However, any writer who uses at least one approach will be more persuasive than a writer who ignores opportunities to entreat one of the most powerful aspects of the human experience—emotions.

Works Cited

“Cyberbullying.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection . Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context . Web. 21 July 2016.

Kristof, Nicholas. “To Kill a Chicken.” The New York Times . The New York Times, 3 May 2015. Web. 20 July 2016.

McKin, Jenifer. “From victim to impassioned voice: Women exploited as a teen fights sexual trafficking of children.” The Boston Globe . Boston Globe Media Partners, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 July 2016.

Whelan, Christine. “The 10 Most Common Feelings Worldwide: We Feel Fine.” The Huffington Post . The Huffington Post, 18 March 2012. Web. 21 July 2016.

Brevity – Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence – How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow – How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity – Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style – The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Speech & Writing

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, ethos, pathos, logos, kairos: the modes of persuasion and how to use them.

General Education

Ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos all stem from rhetoric—that is, speaking and writing effectively. You might find the concepts in courses on rhetoric, psychology, English, or in just about any other field!

The concepts of ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos are also called the modes of persuasion, ethical strategies, or rhetorical appeals. They have a lot of different applications ranging from everyday interactions with others to big political speeches to effective advertising.

Read on to learn about what the modes of persuasion are, how they’re used, and how to identify them!

What Are the Modes of Persuasion?

As you might have guessed from the sound of the words, ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos go all the way back to ancient Greece. The concepts were introduced in Aristotle’s Rhetoric , a treatise on persuasion that approached rhetoric as an art, in the fourth century BCE.

Rhetoric was primarily concerned with ethos, pathos, and logos, but kairos, or the idea of using your words at the right time, was also an important feature of Aristotle’s teachings.

However, kairos was particularly interesting to the Sophists, a group of intellectuals who made their living teaching a variety of subjects. The Sophists stressed the importance of structuring rhetoric around the ideal time and place.

Together, all four concepts have become the modes of persuasion, though we typically focus on ethos, pathos, and logos.

What Is Ethos?

Though you may not have heard the term before, ‘ethos’ is a common concept. You can think of it as an appeal to authority or character—persuasive techniques using ethos will attempt to persuade you based on the speaker’s social standing or knowledge. The word ethos even comes from the Greek word for character.

An ethos-based argument will include a statement that makes use of the speaker or writer’s position and knowledge. For example, hearing the phrase, “As a doctor, I believe,” before an argument about physical health is more likely to sway you than hearing, “As a second-grade teacher, I believe.”

Likewise, celebrity endorsements can be incredibly effective in persuading people to do things . Many viewers aspire to be like their favorite celebrities, so when they appear in advertisements, they're more likely to buy whatever they're selling to be more like them. The same is true of social media influencers, whose partnerships with brands can have huge financial benefits for marketers .

In addition to authority figures and celebrities, according to Aristotle, we’re more likely to trust people who we perceive as having good sense, good morals, and goodwill —in other words, we trust people who are rational, fair, and kind. You don’t have to be famous to use ethos effectively; you just need whoever you’re persuading to perceive you as rational, moral, and kind.

What Is Pathos?

Pathos, which comes from the Greek word for suffering or experience, is rhetoric that appeals to emotion. The emotion appealed to can be a positive or negative one, but whatever it is, it should make people feel strongly as a means of getting them to agree or disagree.

For example, imagine someone asks you to donate to a cause, such as saving rainforests. If they just ask you to donate, you may or may not want to, depending on your previous views. But if they take the time to tell you a story about how many animals go extinct because of deforestation, or even about how their fundraising efforts have improved conditions in the rainforests, you may be more likely to donate because you’re emotionally involved.

But pathos isn’t just about creating emotion; it can also be about counteracting it. For example, imagine a teacher speaking to a group of angry children. The children are annoyed that they have to do schoolwork when they’d rather be outside. The teacher could admonish them for misbehaving, or, with rhetoric, he could change their minds.

Suppose that, instead of punishing them, the teacher instead tries to inspire calmness in them by putting on some soothing music and speaking in a more hushed voice. He could also try reminding them that if they get to work, the time will pass quicker and they’ll be able to go outside to play.

Aristotle outlines emotional dichotomies in Rhetoric . If an audience is experiencing one emotion and it’s necessary to your argument that they feel another, you can counterbalance the unwanted emotion with the desired one . The dichotomies, expanded upon after Aristotle, are :

• Anger/Calmness
• Friendship/Enmity
• Fear/Confidence
• Shame/Shamelessness
• Kindness/Unkindness
• Pity/Indignation
• Envy/Emulation

Note that these can work in either direction; it’s not just about swaying an audience from a negative emotion to a positive one. 

However, changing an audience's emotion based on false or misleading information is often seen as manipulation rather than persuasion. Getting into the hows and whys requires a dive into the ethics of rhetoric , but suffice to say that when you attempt to deceive an audience, that is manipulation.

If you really want to get an audience fired up about something, you can inspire righteous anger, which may or may not be manipulation. If somebody is offended that you’ve asked them for something, you can try making them feel sorry for you by turning indignation into pity— that’s manipulation.

What Is Logos?

Logos comes from a Greek word of multiple meanings, including “ground,” “speech,” and “reason.” In rhetoric, it specifically refers to having a sense of logic to your persuasion; logos-based rhetoric is founded in logic and reason rather than emotion, authority, or personality.

A logic-based argument appeals to a person’s sense of reason— good logos-based rhetoric will persuade people because the argument is well-reasoned and based in fact. There are two common approaches to logos: deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive arguments build on statements to reach a conclusion —in effect, the conclusion is reached in reverse. A common method is to propose multiple true statements which are combined to reach a conclusion, such as the classic method of proving that Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates must be mortal.

That’s not really a case that needs to be argued, but we can apply the same framework to other arguments as well. For example, we need energy to live. Food gives the body energy. Therefore, we need food to live.  

All of this is based on things we can prove, and results in a conclusion that is true , not just theorized. Deductive reasoning works on the assumption that A = B, B = C, so therefore A = C. But this also supposes that all the information is true, which is not always the case.

Sometimes the conclusions you reach with deductive reasoning can be valid, as in the reasoning makes sense, but the conclusion may not be necessarily true. If we return to the Socrates argument, we could propose that:

All men eat apples. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates must eat apples.

The problem is that we can’t prove that all men eat apples —some do, some don’t. Some might eat an apple once but never again. But based on our arguments, the conclusion that Socrates must eat apples is valid.

A strong deductive argument for logos-based reasoning will be composed of provable facts that can reach a provable conclusion. However, a valid but not entirely sound argument can also be effective—but be wary of shifting from persuasion to manipulation!

Another approach to logos-based rhetoric is inductive reasoning, which, unlike deductive reasoning, results in a probable argument rather than a definite one. That doesn’t mean that it is less effective—many scientific concepts we accept as truth are inductive theories simply because we cannot travel back in time and prove them— but rather that inductive reasoning is based on eliminating the impossible and ending in an argument that is based in sound logic and fact, but that may not necessarily be provable.

For example, all people with a cough have a cold. Kelly has a cough. Therefore, Kelly likely has a cold.

Our conclusion is likely , but not absolute. It’s possible that Kelly doesn’t have a cold—not because she doesn't have a cough, but because there are other possible causes, such as having allergies or having just breathed in some dust. The conclusion that she has a cold is likely based on data, but not absolute.

Another example would be that Kelly picks her nose. Kelly is a woman, therefore all women must pick their nose.

Inductive reasoning is based on generalizations. The first example, in which Kelly likely has a cold, makes sense because it’s based on something provable—that a sampling of people who have a cough have colds—and followed up with a likely conclusion. In the second example, this is a less sensible conclusion because it’s based on extrapolation from a single reference point.

If we reverse the claim and say that all women pick their noses, and Kelly is a woman, therefore Kelly must pick her nose, that would be more sound logic. Still not necessarily true—not all women pick their noses—but a more sound example of inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning can still be incredibly effective in persuasion, provided that your information is well-reasoned. Inductive reasoning creates a hypothesis that can be tested; its conclusion is not necessarily true, but can be examined.

As always, be wary of venturing into manipulation, which is more likely to be based on erroneous or misleading facts.

What Is Kairos?

Kairos is the Greek word for the opportune moment, which is precisely what it means in rhetoric. According to this principle, the time in which an argument is deployed is as important as the argument itself. An argument at the wrong time or to the wrong audience will be wasted; to be effective, you must also consider when you are speaking and to whom.

In effect, kairos means choosing the correct rhetorical device to match the audience and space in which you’re attempting to persuade. If you wanted to persuade people to go vegetarian, the middle of a hot dog-eating contest is probably not the right time. Likewise, you’re probably not going to persuade a room of data-driven scientists of something by appealing to pathos or ethos; logos is probably your best bet.

In essence, kairos asks you to consider the context and atmosphere of the argument you’re making. How can you deploy your argument better considering time and space? Should you wait, or is time of the essence?

As Aristotle famously said, “Anybody can become angry—that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way—that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.”

The goal of kairos is to achieve exactly that. Effective use of kairos strengthens your persuasion ability by considering how people are already feeling based on context. How can you influence or counteract that? Or maybe pathos isn’t the right approach—maybe cold hard facts, using logos, is more suited. Kairos works in conjunction with the other modes of persuasion to strengthen your argument, so as you’re putting a persuasive piece together, consider how and when it’ll be deployed!

How to Identify Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and Kairos

Understanding how the modes of persuasion work can make you better at identifying and picking them out. Not only is a better understanding of them useful for composing your own arguments, but it’s also beneficial when seeing other people’s arguments. When you understand how ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos work, you’re less susceptible to them.

Advertising is one of the places we see the modes of persuasion most often. Looking at each of these advertisements, you can see how they use each mode of persuasion to convince audiences to convince an audience of something.

Using celebrities is a classic example of ethos, which uses authority or recognition to convince an audience of something. In this case, celebrities like Michelle Obama, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Janelle Monáe discuss the importance of voting.

It doesn’t matter that they’re not politicians or political scientists; audiences find them appealing and genuine. When they speak of the importance of voting, audiences listen because they like what these figures have to say . If talented, famous people like this are taking the time to vote, it must be important!

Historians or those well-versed in politics might make different arguments about why audiences should vote, but in this case, the goal is to inspire people. When we see people we admire doing things, we want to do them too; hence the reason that ethos works so well.

ASPCA’s commercials are some of the most infamous examples of pathos in advertising. Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel” plays over footage of abused animals in shelters, encouraging viewers to donate money to support the organization.

It’s not hard to understand why it works; both the song and the imagery are heartbreaking! You can’t help but feel sad when you see it, and that sadness, when followed up by a prompt to donate, encourages you to take immediate action.  And these ads are effective— the campaign raised millions of dollars for ASPCA .

By appealing to our emotions and making us feel sad, this advertisement encourages us to act. That’s a classic use of ethos—it influences our feelings through the one-two punch of sad music and imagery, encouraging us to perform the desired action.

In some cases, emotion and authority aren’t the right tactic. Logos often appears in tech advertisements, such as this one for the iPhone XS and XR.

Notice how the advertisement focuses on product shots and technological terms. Most audiences won’t know what an A12 bionic neural engine is, but it sounds impressive. Likewise, that “12 MPf/1.8 wide-angle lens, with larger, deeper 1.4 micron pixels” is pretty meaningless to most people, but the numbers suggest that this phone is something special because it uses scientific-sounding language.

It doesn’t matter whether audiences really understand what’s being said or not. What matters is that they feel confident that the ad is selling them something they need —in this case, impressive technological specifications that make this phone an improvement over others.

Kairos should ideally factor into all uses of the modes of persuasion, but timeliness can also be a big selling point. In this Christmas-themed M&Ms advertisement, the company uses timely humor to forge a connection between the holidays and M&Ms.

Because these commercials have been running for such a long time, there’s also a nostalgic attachment to them. Just as people look forward to new Budweiser advertisements during the Super Bowl, others look forward to seeing M&Ms or the Coca-Cola polar bear during the holidays.

Though this commercial doesn’t go out of its way to tell you the benefits of M&Ms, it does forge a connection between M&Ms and Christmas, encouraging people to purchase them around the holidays.

Examples of the Modes of Persuasion

Now that you’ve had some exposure to how ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos function and what they can do, you can test your ability to recognize them using the images below!

There are a few things to notice about this image:

• The anonymous figure
• The language
• The use of a statistic

Can you figure out which mode of persuasion this represents?

The fact that the figure is anonymous tells us it’s probably not ethos. While we might be influenced by a person who’s in shape, there’s not really an appeal here based on the person—they’re just an image to support the ad.

“DOMINATE” is a pretty loaded word, suggesting that this may have elements of pathos.

However, take a look at that statistic. Whether it’s true or not, a hard statistic like that suggests that this ad is using logos to appeal to viewers. You can draw out an argument from there—75% of users lose weight within weeks. You’re a user. Therefore, you will likely lose weight within weeks.

What do you notice about this image?

• The way the text frames the woman’s body
• The name of the perfume
• The color choice

What mode of persuasion is this?

Again, we don’t know who the model is, and perfume isn’t going to make us look like her, so we can count ethos out.

The ad seems pretty intent on making us look at certain things—the woman’s lips and chest in particular. What is it trying to make us feel?

“FORBIDDEN FRUIT” has a connotation of sensuality.

Red is a color commonly associated with passion.

When you combine the photo, the framing, the perfume name, and the color, you get a strong sense of sex appeal from the advertisement. This makes it an example of pathos—the ad is trying to make us feel a certain way . If we buy this perfume, maybe we would feel attractive, too.

How about this advertisement?

• A serious-looking photo
• Text promising “no more back pain”
• “Doctor recommended.”

Seeing a doctor might make you tempted to think the answer is logos, but there’s no appeal to logic here.

“No more back pain,” is a nice promise, but there’s no attempt to appeal to emotions, so it can’t be pathos.

What’s important in this image is the combination of the doctor in the image and the line “doctor recommended.” This doctor might not be famous, but he does have authority, making this an example of ethos.

Our confidence in this treatment grows because we trust that a doctor understands how to address back pain.

What mode of persuasion is this?  Think about:

• The framing

She does look fashionable and the ad mentions stylists, so it’s possible that this is ethos.

There are no statistics or arguments being made, so the answer probably isn’t logos.

Pathos is possible, but despite having a heavily made-up model, this ad is far less about sex appeal than the previous one.

But the text mentions a specific holiday—New Year’s—suggesting that this is kairos. Kairos can, and often should, be combined with all the modes of persuasion to be even more effective. In this case, the model’s appearance could suggest either ethos or pathos in addition to kairos. The message here is that you should act now, at the beginning of the year, to take advantage of the deal and to start the year off with a new style, much like the one the model is sporting.

Key Tips for Identifying Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and Kairos

Now that you know the difference between all the modes of persuasion, you’ll have a much easier time identifying them. If you run into trouble, you can always ask questions about what you’re seeing, hearing, or reading to understand what mode of persuasion it’s using.

#1: Is It Related to a Specific Time?

If the argument is based on a specific day or context, such as Valentine’s Day or appealing only to a select group of people, such as people with dogs, it’s more likely to be kairos.

#2: Does It Involve a Celebrity or Authority Figure?

Celebrities are often a dead giveaway that an argument is using ethos. But authority figures, such as doctors, dentists, or politicians, can also be used to appeal to ethos. Even regular, everyday people can work, particularly when combined with pathos, to appeal to you based on a mutual connection you have.

#3: Does It Involve Statistics?

Statistics are a huge clue that an argument is using logos. But logos can also just be a logical argument, such as that if plants need water, and it’s hard to remember to water them, you should buy an automatic plant waterer. It makes perfect sense, making you more likely to buy it, rather than changing your habits to remember to water your plants more frequently.

#4: Does It Influence Your Emotions?

If an argument tries to change your emotions, whether by making you sad, happy, angry, or something else entirely, it’s a good indicator that it’s using pathos. Sex appeal is one of the biggest examples of pathos in advertising, appearing everywhere from makeup ads to car commercials to hamburger advertisements.

What’s Next?

Need help understanding the historical context for The Great Gatsby to perfect your kairos-based argument?

You can always combine the modes of persuasion with literary devices to make your arguments even stronger!

Learn how to say "good morning" in Japanese ! Even if it's not a mode of persuasion, it's just good manners.

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Pathos Definition

What is pathos? Here’s a quick and simple definition:

Pathos , along with logos and ethos , is one of the three "modes of persuasion" in rhetoric (the art of effective speaking or writing). Pathos is an argument that appeals to an audience's emotions. When a speaker tells a personal story, presents an audience with a powerful visual image, or appeals to an audience's sense of duty or purpose in order to influence listeners' emotions in favor of adopting the speaker's point of view, he or she is using pathos .

Some additional key details about pathos:

• You may also hear the word "pathos" used to mean "a quality that invokes sadness or pity," as in the statement, "The actor's performance was full of pathos." However, this guide focuses specifically on the rhetorical technique of pathos used in literature and public speaking to persuade readers and listeners through an appeal to emotion.
• The three "modes of persuasion"— pathos , logos , and ethos —were originally defined by Aristotle.
• In contrast to pathos, which appeals to the listener's emotions, logos appeals to the audience's sense of reason, while ethos appeals to the audience based on the speaker's authority.
• Although Aristotle developed the concept of pathos in the context of oratory and speechmaking, authors, poets, and advertisers also use pathos frequently.

Pathos Pronunciation

Here's how to pronounce pathos : pay -thos

Pathos in Depth

Aristotle (the ancient Greek philosopher and scientist) first defined pathos , along with logos and ethos , in his treatise on rhetoric, Ars Rhetorica. Together, he referred to pathos , logos , and ethos as the three modes of persuasion, or sometimes simply as "the appeals." Aristotle defined pathos as "putting the audience in a certain frame of mind," and argued that to achieve this task a speaker must truly know and understand his or her audience. For instance, in Ars Rhetorica, Aristotle describes the information a speaker needs to rile up a feeling of anger in his or her audience:

Take, for instance, the emotion of anger: here we must discover (1) what the state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them. It is not enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger in any one.

Here, Aristotle articulates that it's not enough to know the dominant emotions that move one's listeners: you also need to have a deeper understanding of the listeners' values, and how these values motivate their emotional responses to specific individuals and behaviors.

Pathos vs Logos and Ethos

Pathos is often criticized as being the least substantial or legitimate of the three persuasive modest. Arguments using logos appeal to listeners' sense of reason through the presentation of facts and a well-structured argument. Meanwhile, arguments using ethos generally try to achieve credibility by relying on the speaker's credentials and reputation. Therefore, both logos and ethos may seem more concrete—in the sense of being more evidence-based—than pathos, which "merely" appeals to listeners' emotions. But people often forget that facts, statistics, credentials, and personal history can be easily manipulated or fabricated in order to win the confidence of an audience, while people at the same time underestimate the power and importance of being able to expertly direct the emotional current of an audience to win their allegiance or sympathy.

Pathos Examples

Pathos in literature.

Characters in literature often use pathos to convince one another, or themselves, of a certain viewpoint. It's important to remember that pathos , perhaps more than the other modes of persuasion, relies not only on the content of what is said, but also on the tone and expressiveness of the delivery . For that reason, depictions of characters using pathos can be dramatic and revealing of character.

Pathos in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

In this example from Chapter 16 of Pride and Prejudice , George Wickham describes the history of his relationship with Mr. Darcy to Elizabeth Bennet—or at least, he describes his version of their shared history. Wickham's goal is to endear himself to Elizabeth, turn her against Mr. Darcy, and cover up the truth. (Wickham actually squanders his inheritance from Mr. Darcy's father and, out of laziness, turns down Darcy Senior's offer help him obtain a "living" as a clergyman.)

"The church ought to have been my profession...had it pleased [Mr. Darcy]... Yes—the late Mr. Darcy bequeathed me the next presentation of the best living in his gift. He was my godfather, and excessively attached to me. I cannot do justice to his kindness. He meant to provide for me amply, and thought he had done it; but when the living fell it was given elsewhere...There was just such an informality in the terms of the bequest as to give me no hope from law. A man of honor could not have doubted the intention, but Mr. Darcy chose to doubt it—or to treat it as a merely conditional recommendation, and to assert that I had forfeited all claim to it by extravagance, imprudence, in short any thing or nothing. Certain it is, that the living became vacant two years ago, exactly as I was of an age to hold it, and that it was given to another man; and no less certain is it, that I cannot accuse myself of having really done anything to deserve to lose it. I have a warm, unguarded temper, and I may perhaps have sometimes spoken my opinion of him, and to him, too freely. I can recall nothing worse. But the fact is, that we are very different sort of men, and that he hates me." "This is quite shocking!—he deserves to be publicly disgraced." "Some time or other he will be—but it shall not be by me. Till I can forget his father, I can never defy or expose him." Elizabeth honored him for such feelings, and thought him handsomer than ever as he expressed them.

Here, Wickham claims that Darcy robbed him of his intended profession out of greed, and that he, Wickham, is too virtuous to reveal Mr. Darcy's "true" nature with respect to this issue. By doing so, Wickham successfully uses pathos in the form of a personal story, inspiring Elizabeth to feel sympathy, admiration, and romantic interest towards him. In this example, Wickham's use of pathos indicates a shifty, manipulative character and lack of substance.

Pathos in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter

In The Scarlet Letter , Hawthorne tells the story of Hester Prynne, a young woman living in seventeenth-century Boston. As punishment for committing the sin of adultery, she is sentenced to public humiliation on the scaffold, and forced to wear the scarlet letter "A" on her clothing for the rest of her life. Even though Hester's punishment exposes her before the community, she refuses to reveal the identity of the man she slept with. In the following passage from Chapter 3, two reverends—first, Arthur Dimmesdale and then John Wilson—urge her to reveal the name of her partner:

"What can thy silence do for him, except it tempt him—yea, compel him, as it were—to add hypocrisy to sin? Heaven hath granted thee an open ignominy, that thereby thou mayest work out an open triumph over the evil within thee and the sorrow without. Take heed how thou deniest to him—who, perchance, hath not the courage to grasp it for himself—the bitter, but wholesome, cup that is now presented to thy lips!’ The young pastor’s voice was tremulously sweet, rich, deep, and broken. The feeling that it so evidently manifested, rather than the direct purport of the words, caused it to vibrate within all hearts, and brought the listeners into one accord of sympathy. Even the poor baby at Hester’s bosom was affected by the same influence, for it directed its hitherto vacant gaze towards Mr. Dimmesdale, and held up its little arms with a half-pleased, half-plaintive murmur... "Woman, transgress not beyond the limits of Heaven’s mercy!’ cried the Reverend Mr. Wilson, more harshly than before. ‘That little babe hath been gifted with a voice, to second and confirm the counsel which thou hast heard. Speak out the name! That, and thy repentance, may avail to take the scarlet letter off thy breast."

The reverends call upon Hester's love for the father of her child—the same love they are condemning—to convince her to reveal his identity. Their attempts to move her by appealing to her sense of duty, compassion and morality are examples of pathos. Once again, this example of pathos reveals a lack of moral fiber in the reverends who are attempting to manipulate Hester by appealing to her emotions, particularly since (spoiler alert!) Reverend Dimmesdale is in fact the father.

Pathos in Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

In " Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night," Thomas urges his dying father to cling to life and his love of it. The poem is a villanelle , a specific form of verse that originated as a ballad or "country song" and is known for its repetition. Thomas' selection of the repetitive villanelle form contributes to the pathos of his insistent message to his father—his appeal to his father's inner strength:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

It's worth noting that, in this poem, pathos is not in any way connected to a lack of morals or inner strength. Quite the opposite, the appeal to emotion is connected to a profound love—the poet's own love for his father.

Pathos in Political Speeches

Politicians understand the power of emotion, and successful politicians are adept at harnessing people's emotions to curry favor for themselves, as well as their policies and ideologies.

Pathos in Barack Obama's 2013 Address to the Nation on Syria

In August 2013, the Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons against Syrians who opposed his regime, causing several countries—including the United States—to consider military intervention in the conflict. Obama's tragic descriptions of civilians who died as a result of the attack are an example of pathos : they provoke an emotional response and help him mobilize American sentiment in favor of U.S. intervention.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country...The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.

Pathos in Ronald Reagan's 1987 " Tear Down This Wall!" Speech

In 1987, the Berlin Wall divided Communist East Berlin from Democratic West Berlin. The Wall was a symbol of the divide between the communist Soviet Union, or Eastern Bloc, and the Western Bloc which included the United States, NATO and its allies. The wall also split Berlin in two, obstructing one of Berlin's most famous landmarks: the Brandenburg Gate.

Reagan's speech, delivered to a crowd in front of the Brandenburg Gate, contains many examples of pathos:

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe...Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly...Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar... General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Reagan moves his listeners to feel outrage at the Wall's existence by calling it a "scar." He assures Germans that the world is invested in the city's problems by telling the crowd that "Every man is a Berliner." Finally, he excites and invigorates the listener by boldly daring Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union, to "tear down this wall!"

Pathos in Advertising

Few appreciate the complexity of pathos better than advertisers. Consider all the ads you've seen in the past week. Whether you're thinking of billboards, magazine ads, or TV commercials, its almost a guarantee that the ones you remember contained very little specific information about the product, and were instead designed to create an emotional association with the brand. Advertisers spend incredible amounts of money trying to understand exactly what Aristotle describes as the building blocks of pathos: the emotional "who, what, and why" of their target audience. Take a look at this advertisement for the watch company, Rolex, featuring David Beckham:

Notice that the ad doesn't convey anything specific about the watch itself to make someone think it's a high quality or useful product. Instead, the ad caters to Rolex's target audience of successful male professionals by causing them to associate the Rolex brand with soccer player David Beckham, a celebrity who embodies the values of the advertisement's target audience: physical fitness and attractiveness, style, charisma, and good hair.

Why Do Writers Use Pathos?

The philosopher and psychologist William James once said, “The emotions aren’t always immediately subject to reason, but they are always immediately subject to action.” Pathos is a powerful tool, enabling speakers to galvanize their listeners into action, or persuade them to support a desired cause. Speechwriters, politicians, and advertisers use pathos for precisely this reason: to influence their audience to a desired belief or action.

The use of pathos in literature is often different than in public speeches, since it's less common for authors to try to directly influence their readers in the way politicians might try to influence their audiences. Rather, authors often employ pathos by having a character make use of it in their own speech. In doing so, the author may be giving the reader some insight into a character's values, motives, or their perception of another character.

Consider the above example from The Scarlet Letter. The clergymen in Hester's town punish her by publicly humiliating her in front of the community and holding her up as an example of sin for conceiving a child outside of marriage. The reverends make an effort to get Hester to tell them the name of her child's father by making a dramatic appeal to a sense of shame that Hester plainly does not feel over her sin. As a result, this use of pathos only serves to expose the the manipulative intent of the reverends, offering readers some insight into their moral character as well as that of Puritan society at large. Ultimately, it's a good example of an ineffective use of pathos , since what the reverends lack is the key to eliciting the response they want: a strong grasp of what their listener values.

Other Helpful Pathos Resources

• The Wikipedia Page on Pathos: A detailed explanation which covers Aristotle's original ideas on pathos and discusses how the term's meaning has changed over time.
• The Dictionary Definition of Pathos: A definition and etymology of the term, which comes from the Greek pàthos, meaning "suffering or sensation."
• An excellent video from TED-Ed about the three modes of persuasion.
• A pathos -laden recording of Dylan Thomas reading his poem "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1918 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 40,425 quotes across 1918 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play
• Round Character
• Rhyme Scheme
• Red Herring
• Tragic Hero
• Parallelism
• Flat Character
• Anadiplosis
• Climax (Plot)

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

 Ethos, Logos, and Pathos – A Simple Guide

4-minute read

• 12th April 2023

Ethos, logos, and pathos are three essential components of persuasive communication . They’ve been used for centuries by great communicators to influence the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of their audiences. In this simple guide, we’ll take a closer look at these three components using examples from famous writing and speeches.

What Is Ethos?

Ethos is a persuasive appeal based on the credibility or character of the speaker or writer. It refers to the trustworthiness, expertise, or authority that they bring to the argument. It’s crucial in establishing the credibility of the speaker or writer and can be built in through a variety of means, such as reputation and sources, or language and tone.

How To Use Ethos

Ethos can be established through the speaker or writer’s reputation: if they are known for being knowledgeable, honest, and trustworthy, this can lend credibility to their argument. For example, in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King Jr. established his ethos by highlighting his role as a civil rights leader and his personal experience with racial injustice.

Another way you can achieve ethos in speech or writing is through the use of credible sources. For example, Rachel Carson established ethos in her book Silent Spring by providing extensive scientific evidence to support her argument that pesticides were harming the environment.

Finally, ethos can be accomplished through the use of language and tone . Using a professional and respectful tone can create the impression of credibility and authority. For instance, in his second inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln employed ethos by using a solemn, reflective tone to convey the gravity of the situation.

What Is Logos?

Logos is a persuasive appeal based on logic and reasoning. It refers to the use of evidence and logical arguments to support the speaker or writer’s position.

How To Use Logos

One way you can implement logos in your speech or writing is through the use of statistics and data. When writing, or constructing a speech, try to incorporate reliable and credible stats or figures to strengthen your claims or argument and persuade your audience.

You can also employ examples and analogies to achieve logos. These can make your argument more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. For example, in his book The Tipping Point , Malcolm Gladwell uses the example of “the broken windows” theory to illustrate his argument that small changes can have a big impact on social behavior.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Finally, logos can be established through the use of logical arguments . To ensure you have a logical argument, you should have a clear statement with definitions, examples, and evidence to support it. For instance, in his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau made a logical argument that individuals have a moral obligation to resist unjust laws.

What Is Pathos?

Pathos is a persuasive appeal based on emotion. It refers to the use of language and imagery that elicits an emotional response. Pathos can be used to create a sense of urgency, inspire empathy, or evoke a particular mood.

How To Use Pathos

Vivid imagery is a great way in which a writer or speaker can implement pathos. Using descriptive language to paint a picture in your audience’s mind is a powerful and persuasive skill. For example, in his poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” Wilfred Owen used vivid imagery to describe the horrors of war and elicit an emotional response in his readers.

Pathos can also be accomplished by using personal anecdotes. The power of storytelling is an invaluable skill for any writer or speaker because it creates rapport and an emotional connection with your audience. For example, in her TED talk “The Power of Vulnerability,” Brene Brown shares personal stories about her struggles with shame and vulnerability to inspire empathy and connection with her audience.

Finally, pathos can be established through the use of rhetorical questions and appeals to shared values. A good example can be heard in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He poses his biggest question to his audience (and the world): “Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history?” In response to this rhetorical question, he beautifully tries to persuade the audience to work together toward a common goal, stating, “It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity.”

Ethos, logos, and pathos are powerful tools for persuasive speech and writing. By establishing credibility, using logical arguments, and appealing to emotion, speakers and writers can influence the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of their audiences. When used effectively, these elements can help to create meaningful and lasting change in the world.

Interested in learning how to elevate your writing with more literary devices? Check our other articles .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Writing a Persuasive Essay

Persuasive essays convince readers to accept a certain perspective. Writing a persuasive essay therefore entails making an argument that will appeal to readers, so they believe what you say has merit. This act of appealing to readers is the art of persuasion, also known as rhetoric. In classical rhetoric, persuasion involves appealing to readers using ethos, pathos, and logos.

In this tutorial, we refer to the sample persuasive draft and final paper written by fictional student Maggie Durham.

THE ART OF PERSUASION

Ethos refers to establishing yourself as a credible source of information. To convince an audience of anything, they must first trust you are being earnest and ethical. One strategy to do this is to write a balanced discussion with relevant and reliable research that supports your claims. Reliable research would include quoting or paraphrasing experts, first-hand witnesses, or authorities. Properly citing your sources, so your readers can also retrieve them, is another factor in establishing a reliable ethos. When writing for academic purposes, expressing your argument using unbiased language and a neutral tone will also indicate you are arguing fairly and with consideration of others having differing views.

When you appeal to your readers’ emotions, you are using pathos. This appeal is common in advertising that convinces consumers they lack something and buying a certain product or service will fulfill that lack. Emotional appeals are subtler in academic writing; they serve to engage a reader in the argument and inspire a change of heart or motivate readers toward a course of action. The examples you use, how you define terms, any comparisons you draw, as well as the language choices you use can draw readers in and impact their willingness to go along with your ideas.

Consider that one purpose of persuasion is to appeal to those who do not already agree with you, so it will be important to show that you understand other points of view. You will also want to avoid derogatory or insulting descriptions or remarks about the opposition. You wouldn’t want to offend the very readers you want to persuade.

Establishing an appeal of logos is to write a sound argument, one that readers can follow and understand. To do this, the facts and evidence you use should be relevant, representative, and reliable, and the writing as a whole should be well organized, developed, and edited.

STEPS FOR WRITING PERSUASIVELY

Step one: determine the topic.

The first step in writing a persuasive essay is to establish the topic. The best topic is one that interests you. You can generate ideas for a topic by prewriting, such as by brainstorming whatever comes to mind, recording in grocery-list fashion your thoughts, or freewriting in complete sentences what you know or think about topics of interest.

Whatever topic you choose, it needs to be:

• Interesting : The topic should appeal both to you and to your intended readers.
• Researchable : A body of knowledge should already exist on the topic.
• Nonfiction : The information about the topic should be factual, not based on personal opinions or conspiracy theories.
• Important : Your reader should think the topic is relevant to them or worthy of being explored and discussed.

Our sample student Maggie Durham has selected the topic of educational technology. We will use Maggie’s sample persuasive draft and final paper as we discuss the steps for writing a persuasive essay.

Step Two: Pose a Research Question

Once you have a topic, the next step is to develop a research question along with related questions that delve further into the first question. If you do not know what to ask, start with one of the question words: What? Who? Where? When? Why? and How? The research question helps you focus or narrow the scope of your topic by identifying a problem, controversy, or aspect of the topic that is worth exploration and discussion. Some general questions about a topic would be the following:

• Who is affected by this problem and how?
• Have previous efforts or polices been made to address this problem? – What are they?
• Why hasn’t this problem been solved already?

For Maggie’s topic of educational technology, potential issues or controversies range from data privacy to digital literacy to the impact of technology on learning, which is what Maggie is interested in. Maggie’s local school district has low literacy rates, so Maggie wants to know the following:

• Are there advantages and/or disadvantages of technology within primary and secondary education?
• Which types of technology are considered the best in terms of quality and endurance?
• What types of technology and/or programs do students like using and why?
• Do teachers know how to use certain technologies with curriculum design, instruction, and/or assessment?

Step Three: Draft a Thesis

A thesis is a claim that asserts your main argument about the topic. As you conduct your research and draft your paper, you may discover information that changes your mind about your thesis, so at this point in writing, the thesis is tentative. Still, it is an important step in narrowing your focus for research and writing.

The thesis should

1. be a complete sentence,

2. identify the topic, and

3. make a specific claim about that topic.

In a persuasive paper, the thesis is a claim that someone should believe or do something. For example, a persuasive thesis might assert that something is effective or ineffective. It might state that a policy should be changed or a plan should be implemented. Or a persuasive thesis might be a plea for people to change their minds about a particular issue.

Once you have figured out your research question, your thesis is simply the answer. Maggie’s thesis is “Schools should supply technology aids to all students to increase student learning and literacy rates.” Her next step is to find evidence to support her claim.

Step Four: Research

Once you have a topic, research question, and thesis, you are ready to conduct research. To find sources that would be appropriate for an academic persuasive essay, begin your search in the library. The Purdue Global Library has a number of tutorials on conducting research, choosing search teams, types of sources, and how to evaluate information to determine its reliability and usefulness. Remember that the research you use will not only provide content to prove your claim and develop your essay, but it will also help to establish your credibility as a reliable source (ethos), create a logical framework for your argument (logos), and appeal to your readers emotionally (pathos).

Step Five: Plan Your Argument; Make an Outline

Once you have located quality source information—facts, examples, definitions, knowledge, and other information that answers your research question(s), you’ll want to create an outline to organize it. The example outline below illustrates a logical organizational plan for writing a persuasive essay. The example outline begins with an introduction that presents the topic, explains the issue, and asserts the position (the thesis). The body then provides the reasoning for the position and addresses the opposing viewpoints that some readers may hold. In your paper, you could modify this organization and address the opposing viewpoints first and then give the reasoning for your viewpoints, or you can alternate and give one opposing viewpoint then counter that with your viewpoint and then give another opposing viewpoint and counter that with your viewpoint.

The outline below also considers the alternatives to the position—certainly, there are other ways to think about or address the issue or situation. Considering the alternatives can be done in conjunction with looking at the opposing viewpoints. You do not always have to disagree with other opinions, either. You can acknowledge that another solution could work or another belief is valid. However, at the end of the body section, you will want to stand by your original position and prove that in light of all the opposing viewpoints and other perspectives, your position has the most merit.

Sample Outline of a Persuasive Argument

• 1. Introduction: Tell them what you will tell them.
• a. Present an interesting fact or description to make the topic clear and capture the reader’s attention.
• b. Define and narrow the topic using facts or descriptions to illustrate what the situation or issue is (and that is it important).
• c. Assert the claim (thesis) that something should be believed or done about the issue. (Some writers also briefly state the reasons behind this claim in the thesis as Maggie does in her paper when she claims that schools should supply tablets to students to increase learning , engagement, and literacy rates ).
• 2. Body: Tell them.
• a. Defend the claim with logical reasons and practical examples based on research.
• b. Anticipate objections to the claim and refute or accommodate them with research.
• c. Consider alternate positions or solutions using examples from research.
• d. Present a final point based on research that supports your claim in light of the objections and alternatives considered.
• 3. Conclusion: Tell them what you told them.
• a. Recap the main points to reinforce the importance of the issue.
• b. Restate the thesis in new wording to reinforce your position.
• c. Make a final remark to leave a lasting impression, so the reader will want to continue this conversation and ideally adopt the belief or take the action you are advocating.

In Maggie’s draft, she introduced the topic with facts about school ratings in Texas and then narrowed the topic using the example of her local school district’s literacy rates. She then claimed the district should provide each student a tablet in order to increase learning (and thus, literacy rates).

Maggie defends her claim with a series of examples from research that proved how access to tablets, technology-integrated curriculums, and “flipped classrooms” have improved literacy rates in other districts. She anticipates objections to her proposal due to the high cost of technology and counter argues this with expert opinions and examples that show partnerships with businesses, personalized curriculums that technology makes possible, and teacher training can balance the costs. Maggie included an alternative solution of having students check out tablets from the library, but her research showed that this still left students needing Wi-Fi at home while her proposal would include a plan for students to access Wi-Fi.

Maggie concluded her argument by pointing out the cost of not helping the students in this way and restated her thesis reaffirming the benefits, and then left the reader with a memorable quote.

Click here to see Maggie’s draft with feedback from her instructor and a peer. Sample Persuasive Draft

Feedback, Revision, and Editing

After you write a draft of your persuasive essay, the next step is to have a peer, instructor, or tutor read it and provide feedback. Without reader feedback, you cannot fully know how your readers will react to your argument. Reader feedback is meant to be constructive. Use it to better understand your readers and craft your argument to more appropriately appeal to them.

Maggie received valuable feedback on her draft from her instructor and classmate. They pointed to where her thesis needed to be even more specific, to paragraphs where a different organization would make her argument more convincing, to parts of the paper that lacked examples, sentences that needed revision and editing for greater clarity, and APA formatting that needed to be edited.

Maggie also took a critical look at her paper and looked back at her writing process. One technique she found helpful was to read her paper aloud because it let her know where her wording and organization were not clear. She did this several times as she revised and again as she edited and refined her paper for sentence level clarity and concision.

In the end, Maggie produced a convincing persuasive essay and effective argument that would appeal to readers who are also interested in the way technology can impact and improve student learning, an important topic in 2014 when this paper was written and still relevant today.

Click here to see Maggie’s final draft after revising and editing. Sample Persuasive Revised

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments
• COLLEGE WRITING
• USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
• EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
• LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
• PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
• FACULTY RESOURCES
• Student Webinar Calendar
• Academic Success Center
• Writing Center
• About the ASC Tutors
• DIVERSITY TRAINING
• PG Peer Tutors
• PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

• College Writing
• Using Sources & APA Style
• Learning for Success
• Effective Writing Podcasts
• Plagiarism Information
• Faculty Resources
• Tutor Training

Twitter feed

• Speech Crafting →

Examples of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Persuasive Speeches

Ever fumbled for words while convincing someone to sign up for your club or buy something you're promoting on stage?

It happens. For this reason, Aristotle came up with three essential tools you can use in your everyday speech to persuade people for almost anything: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Here are some vivid examples of ethos, pathos, and logos to help you understand what they are and how to use them in your arguments.

The Three Tools That Guide Your Speech

Ethos, pathos, and logos are Greek words that make up the rhetorical triangle. Aristotle was the first to come up with them and wrote these concepts in his book, Rhetoric .

You can use them in any argument if you want to drive your point across or sell something: an idea, a product, or a brand.

Whether it is a sales pitch, a compelling argument, or a speech, these three modes of persuasion can sway your audience's perspective. Their presence since ancient times depicts their strength and significance.

Ethos is Greek for “character,” "credibility," or "authority." It refers to a person's character when they are presenting an argument.

The stronger the character or, the more influential the speaker is, the more they can change someone’s point of view regarding a particular subject.

You wouldn’t be enraptured, hanging on to her every word when J.K Rowling was giving a TED talk if she wasn’t a famous author, right?

Therefore, many brands and companies try to get celebrities to advertise for them. When people become fans, they religiously love what the celebrity loves and hates what the celebrity doesn't like.

This is the power of ethos. Here is how to establish ethos in a speech .

There are tons of examples of ethos in advertisements, movies, speeches, and daily life. Highlighted below are some of them.

Albus Dumbledor used ethos in the movie The Goblet of Fire when he went against the Ministry of Magic to tell his students how Cedric Diggory died. He knew they would believe him because he was Headmaster. He said:

"I think, therefore, you have the right to know exactly how he died. You see, Cedric Diggory was murdered by Lord Voldemort. The Ministry of Magic does not wish me to tell you this. But I think to do so would be an insult to his memory."

In a commercial, you’d see 4 out of 5 dentists recommending a particular toothpaste. That's how brands convince viewers to buy their products by backing them up with credible people.

As a physics student, you tune in to a TED talk by Brian Greene and believe everything he says because he’s a theoretical physicist and a string theorist.

Pathos is Greek for “emotion,” “suffering,” or “experience.” This rhetorical strategy appeals to people's feelings when used in an argument.

It invokes people’s senses, nostalgia, memory, and experiences. It is used in ads and videos to persuade people to follow a call to action.

When pathos is embedded in a message, it moves people, driving them to take action. Pathos can trigger any intended emotion in people, such as sympathy, pity, and empathy.

Why do you think romance sells so much, be it novels, movies, or stories? It pulls at the reader’s heartstrings, connects them to the characters, and makes them want something similar.

Below are some examples of pathos in everyday life, movies, and ads.

An excellent way to convince people to donate to a puppy shelter is to show them how brutally they'll die if they don't donate.

The Evian commercial in which adults look like toddlers when they look at their reflections depicts the "bandwagon effect." Light-heartedly, it uses feel-good emotion to convince people to buy their water.

In their ad, IKEA convinces people to opt for home delivery for £3.95 by showing a person stuck in traffic after buying from the brand. This appeals to people because we like comfort, right?

Unlike ethos and pathos, logos rely on logic. It is a Greek word that means “logic” or “reason.” It uses logical reasons to convince people about something.

When you use logos in your everyday speech or arguments, you try to mention facts or data to support your idea.

While ethos uses the speaker's credibility to persuade people about something, pathos uses emotion to trigger people. Logos simply relies on logic and cuts to the chase.

You can easily persuade an audience using reason and logic in your argument; however, emotions do get the best of us as humans. For this reason, there are three modes of persuasion.

The following are a few examples of Logos.

Al Gore, a renowned environmentalist, used logos in his speech “The Climate Crisis Is the Battle of Our Time, and We Can Win,” in 2019. He tells people what exactly is happening that is causing climate change and cites scientific research and experts in his speech as well:

"I often echo the point made by the climate scientist James Hansen: The accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases—some of which will envelop the planet for hundreds and possibly thousands of years—is now trapping as much extra energy daily as 500,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs would release every 24 hours. This is the crisis we face."

In the Versatile Stain Remover ad by OxiClean, you see Billy Mays use the stain remover to clean different products to showcase the product's ability as a stain remover.

An iPhone commercial shows the smartphone's different features that make it stand out from the rest.

Some More Examples of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Almost everyone uses these three modes of persuasion in one form or the other in their arguments. Let’s see how famous people have used them through time.

"During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife.

Pixar went on to create the world's first computer-animated feature film, Toy Story and is now the most successful animation studio in the world.

In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance."

—Steve Jobs, 2005

Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, relies heavily on ethos here. He uses his authority as a founder of successful tech companies to show people why they should listen to him.

"I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations.

Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality."

—Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

Martin Luther King Jr. was famous for fighting for civil rights. In the above excerpt from his speech “I Have a Dream,” he uses pathos to empathize with his audience.

He informs them that he understands they have suffered a lot and have come out of a painful time. This evokes emotion in the audience, and they can connect with King easily.

"Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be.

But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better-adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature that would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders.

In such a case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favored the individuals of any of the species by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement."

—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species, 1859

Charles Darwin appeals to logic or logos in his book Origin of the Species by talking about the rationale of natural selection.

He talks about how species have evolved with time to better adapt to their environment, a.k.a survival of the fittest. You can see how he uses a logical argument to talk about natural selection.

Conclusion: Ethos, Pathos, Logos

Ethos, pathos, and logos have survived the test of time and are used almost everywhere today. You can find them embedded in commercials, movies, speeches, TED talks, and day-to-day arguments.

These three tools of persuasion appeal to different aspects of humanity: authority, emotion, and logic. When used together, they form a solid argument that can convince anyone of its gist.

Ethos uses the speaker’s authority or credibility to persuade the audience. Pathos uses emotion to trigger people to take action. On the other hand, logos rely on facts and logic to drive a point across.

All three are very important to use in any argument.

• Ethos, Pathos, and Logos Definition and Examples

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are modes of persuasion used to convince audiences.  They are also referred to as the three artistic proofs (Aristotle coined the terms), and are all represented by Greek words. 

An author would use ethos to show to his audience that he is a credible source and is worth listening to. Ethos is the Greek word for “character.” The word “ethic” is derived from ethos.

Ethos can be developed by choosing language that is appropriate for the audience and topic (this also means choosing the proper level of vocabulary), making yourself sound fair or unbiased, introducing your expertise, accomplishments or pedigree, and by using correct grammar and syntax.

During public speaking events, typically a speaker will have at least some of his pedigree and accomplishments listed upon introduction by a master of ceremony.

Pathos  or the emotional appeal, means to persuade an audience by appealing to their emotions.

Authors use pathos to invoke sympathy from an audience; to make the audience feel what what the author wants them to feel. A common use of pathos would be to draw pity from an audience. Another use of pathos would be to inspire anger from an audience, perhaps in order to prompt action. Pathos is the Greek word for both “suffering” and “experience.” The words empathy and pathetic  are derived from pathos.

Pathos can be developed by using meaningful language, emotional tone, emotion evoking examples, stories of emotional events, and implied meanings. 

Logos  or the appeal to logic, means to convince an audience by use of logic or reason.

To use logos would be to cite facts and statistics, historical and literal analogies, and citing certain authorities on a subject. Logos is the Greek word for “word,” however the true definition goes beyond that, and can be most closely described as “the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed" and, "the inward thought itself" ( 1 ). The word “logic” is derived from logos.

Logos can be developed by using advanced, theoretical or abstract language, citing facts (very important), using historical and literal analogies, and by constructing logical arguments.

In order to persuade your audience, proper use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos is necessary.

Examples of Ethos, Logos and Pathos:

Example of Ethos: 

“Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30...

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.”

Stanford Commencement Speech by Steve Jobs. June 12, 2005.

Example of Pathos:

"I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed."

I Have a Dream by Martin Luther King Jr. August 28th, 1963.

Example of Logos:

"However, although private final demand, output, and employment have indeed been growing for more than a year, the pace of that growth recently appears somewhat less vigorous than we expected. Notably, since stabilizing in mid-2009, real household spending in the United States has grown in the range of 1 to 2 percent at annual rates, a relatively modest pace. Households' caution is understandable. Importantly, the painfully slow recovery in the labor market has restrained growth in labor income, raised uncertainty about job security and prospects, and damped confidence. Also, although consumer credit shows some signs of thawing, responses to our Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices suggest that lending standards to households generally remain tight."

The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy by Ben Bernanke. August 27th, 2010.

Popular Articles

• Modes of Persuasion: Ethos
• Ethos, Pathos, and Logos ‒ Examples
• Modes of Persuasion: Pathos
• Persuasive Writing

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos in Persuasive Writing

• Post author: Lisa A. Mazzie
• Post published: January 27, 2014
• Post category: Legal Writing / Political Processes & Rhetoric / Public
• Post comments: 1 Comment

At their core, objective and persuasive legal writing share many of the same traits, such as maintaining the small scale organizational paradigm we refer to as CREAC (a/k/a IRAC). Because lawyers use that paradigm to advance their arguments, students need to master it, which makes the structure of the argument look similar to objective writing. But students need to make other, subtler changes in their writing (and thinking) to persuade effectively. It’s often challenging to succinctly explain these more subtle differences, but one easy way is to introduce the “why” behind the differences, which in turn helps explain those differences. Good persuasive writing argues a position by using a combination of three ancient rhetorical techniques: logos, ethos, and pathos.

The first technique is logos, which means logic. Persuasive writing that uses logos uses, where appropriate, literal or historical analogies as well as factual and historical data. Such writing contains citations to authorities or experts. As scholars Ruth Anne Robbins, Steve Johansen, and Ken Chestek say in their new book, Your Client’s Story: Persuasive Legal Writing 21 (2013), “Logos makes your audience think you are right.”

Logos is the easiest technique to understand when referring to legal writing.  It makes sense that a persuasive legal document use logic to persuade readers, and logos is undoubtedly the starting point for a persuasive argument.  But it’s just the start.

The second technique is ethos, which deals with the credibility of the writer. When we read something from someone we trust, we are more likely to believe what she is saying. As Professors Robbins, Johansen, and Chestek tell us, “[E]thos makes your audience trust you are right.” Id. Building ethos in legal writing means the writer must focus on providing substantively sound analyses and arguments, while appropriately acknowledging contrary law and counterarguments, but also focus on creating a professional and polished document that is error-free.

The final technique is pathos, which deals with emotions—specifically, with empathy.  When a speaker or writer uses pathos, he is appealing to his audience’s sense of empathy for his position or his client. He may use vivid, concrete language and examples.  He might use figurative language, such as alliteration, similes, or metaphors. “[P]athos makes your audience feel you are right.” Id.

There are two kinds of pathos: emotional substance and medium mood control. The speaker or writer uses emotional substance when she is trying to elicit an emotional response from her audience. One example that I use to illustrate this idea is the ten-second public service announcement popular in the late 1980s. The spot opens with butter sizzling in a hot pan. There’s an ominous bit of music and a serious voice tells you, “This is drugs.” We then see an egg cracked into the pan, which is so hot that the white of the egg cooks immediately. The voice returns. “This is your brain on drugs. [pause] Any questions?” Here, it seems clear that the viewer is to feel fear and to act on that fear: Look what happens to your brain when you use drugs! Don’t use drugs!

In legal writing, we use the emotional substance pathos when we attempt to create empathy for our client and when we appeal to grander themes of fairness or justice.

Another kind of pathos is medium mood control.  “Medium” here applies to the mode of communication and how that mode of communication affects the audience’s mood.  Humor is an often used technique.  When the reader feels happy, he is more likely to be receptive to (and, thus, persuaded by) the reader’s message.

Humor is quite difficult to use in legal writing.  Instead, a legal writer effectively uses medium mood control by using an appropriate tone, carefully choosing words, and avoiding techniques that might irritate a reader (like poor citation or sloppy organization, among others).  Most of the things a writer does to build her ethos apply here as well: a well-crafted, accurate brief is a joy to read, which makes a reader happy to read it.

The trick with pathos is to use emotion appropriately.  Heavy-handed pathos can make your reader feel manipulated, and no one likes to feel manipulated.

Using all three techniques in concert helps create a strong persuasive piece.  The example I like to use is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail .  In that piece, Dr. King so brilliantly uses all three rhetorical techniques to create a compelling and persuasive document that explains why white clergy’s call for gradualism in the early days of the civil rights movement was misguided. If you haven’t yet read the Letter, I encourage you to do so and to locate for yourself how and where Dr. King uses logos, ethos, and pathos.

How a reader responds to a writer’s persuasive techniques depends on two things: what the reader’s stock structures are and how the reader is being asked to respond.

First, when people are asked to confront new situations or new information, they rely on their stock structures to make sense of that situation or information.  See Robbins et al., Your Client’s Story 29-36. Stock structures (which are known by different names in different fields) are our stereotyped models of experiences. Stock structures provide useful cognitive short cuts because we can quickly assess a new situation and know how we should respond based on our experiences with that situation. But—and it’s a very important “but”—while there may be some commonality between them, stock structures differ for different people because our experiences differ.

Second, readers can be asked to respond in one of three ways: response shaping, response reinforcing, and response changing.  See id. Where a reader has little knowledge or experience and is being persuaded to adopt a new position, the writer has a chance to shape the reader’s response, to help build some stock structures, if you will. This situation does not occur frequently in law, mostly with issues of first impression. A reader who is being asked to simply reinforce what he already knows or has experienced may be easily persuaded. For example, when a trial judge is asked to simply apply precedent, she is being asked to simply reinforce what she knows she needs to do. More difficult is the reader who is being asked to respond by changing his existing beliefs in order to form new ones. Such a reader will need more persuasion.

As our students begin their foray into persuasive writing, share with them some of your favorite persuasive pieces (legal or otherwise).

You Might Also Like

A.b.a. rejections of obama judicial nominees, remembering the 1964 all-star game, the top five skills necessary to be a lawyer, this post has one comment.

Great post.

I just came across a footnote in Law and Language: Effective Symbols of Community , by Harold Berman (edited by John Witte, Jr.), which explains the relationship between syllogistic logic and legal argument:

“‘However useful syllogistic logic may be in testing the validity of conclusions drawn from given premises, it is inadequate in practical science such as law, where the premises are not given but must be created. Legal rules, viewed as major premises, are always subject to qualification in light of the particular circumstances; it is a rule of English and American law, for example, that a person who intentionally strikes another is civilly liable for battery, but such a rule is subject, in legal practice to infinite modification in light of the possible defense (for example, self-defense, defense of property, parental privilege, immunity from suit, lack of jurisdiction, insufficiency of evidence, etc.). In addition, life continually presents new situations to which no existing rule is applicable; we simply do not know the legal limits of freedom of speech, for example, since the social context in which words are spoken is continually changing. Thus, legal rules are continually being made and remade.'”

73 n.23 (quoted in part, internal citations omitted). Syllogism is the starting point for discussing legal logic. I find it helpful to explain the structure of legal argument in the context of major premise/minor premise/conclusion. But Berman highlights the very point that allows two sides of an argument to be presented: that the major premises “are subject to qualification.” The same point could be made of the minor premises–the facts.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

• Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
• Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
• Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
• If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
• Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
• Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.  Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse). 

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers.  Academic arguments in particular ​benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

What Are Logos, Pathos & Ethos?

A straight-forward explainer (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

If you spend any amount of time exploring the wonderful world of philosophy, you’re bound to run into the dynamic trio of rhetorical appeals: logos , ethos and pathos . But, what exactly do they mean and how can you use them in your writing or speaking? In this post, we’ll unpack the rhetorical love triangle in simple terms, using loads of practical examples along the way.

Overview: The Rhetorical Triangle

• What are logos , pathos and ethos ?
• Logos unpacked (+ examples)
• Pathos unpacked (+ examples)
• Ethos unpacked (+ examples)
• The rhetorical triangle

What are logos, ethos and pathos?

Simply put, logos, ethos and pathos are three powerful tools that you can use to persuade an audience of your argument . At the most basic level, logos appeals to logic and reason, while pathos appeals to emotions and ethos emphasises credibility or authority.

Naturally, a combination of all three rhetorical appeals packs the biggest punch, but it’s important to consider a few different factors to determine the best mix for any given context. Let’s look at each rhetorical appeal in a little more detail to understand how best to use them to your advantage.

Logos appeals to the logical, reason-driven side of our minds. Using logos in an argument typically means presenting a strong body of evidence and   facts to support your position. This evidence should then be accompanied by sound logic and well-articulated reasoning .

Let’s look at some examples of logos in action:

• A friend trying to persuade you to eat healthier might present scientific studies that show the benefits of a balanced diet and explain how certain nutrients contribute to overall health and longevity.
• A scientist giving a presentation on climate change might use data from reputable studies, along with well-presented graphs and statistical analyses to demonstrate the rising global temperatures and their impact on the environment.
• An advertisement for a new smartphone might highlight its technological features, such as a faster processor, longer battery life, and a high-resolution camera. This could also be accompanied by technical specifications and comparisons with competitors’ models.

In short, logos is all about using evidence , logic and reason to build a strong argument that will win over an audience on the basis of its objective merit . This contrasts quite sharply against pathos, which we’ll look at next.

Contrasted to logos, pathos appeals to the softer side of us mushy humans. Specifically, it focuses on evoking feelings and emotions in the audience. When utilising pathos in an argument, the aim is to cultivate some feeling of connection in the audience toward either yourself or the point that you’re trying to make.

In practical terms, pathos often uses storytelling , vivid language and personal anecdotes to tap into the audience’s emotions. Unlike logos, the focus here is not on facts and figures, but rather on psychological affect . Simply put, pathos utilises our shared humanness to foster agreement.

Let’s look at some examples of pathos in action:

• An advertisement for a charity might incorporate images of starving children and highlight their desperate living conditions to evoke sympathy, compassion and, ultimately, donations.
• A politician on the campaign trail might appeal to feelings of hope, unity, and patriotism to rally supporters and motivate them to vote for his or her party.
• A fundraising event may include a heartfelt personal story shared by a cancer survivor, with the aim of evoking empathy and encouraging donations to support cancer research.

As you can see, pathos is all about appealing to the human side of us – playing on our emotions to create buy-in and agreement.

Last but not least, we’ve got ethos. Ethos is all about emphasising the credibility and authority of the person making the argument, or leveraging off of someone else’s credibility to support your own argument.

The ethos card can be played by highlighting expertise, achievements, qualifications and accreditations , or even personal and professional associations and connections. Ultimately, the aim here is to foster some level of trust within the audience by demonstrating your competence, as this will make them more likely to take your word as fact.

Let’s look at some examples of ethos in action:

• A fitness equipment brand might hire a well-known athlete to endorse their product.
• A toothpaste brand might make claims highlighting that a large percentage of dentists recommend their product.
• A financial advisor might present their qualifications, certifications and professional memberships when meeting with a prospective client.

As you can see, using ethos in an argument is largely about emphasising the credibility of the person rather than the logical soundness of the argument itself (which would reflect a logos-based approach). This is particularly helpful when there isn’t a large body of evidence to support the argument.

Ethos can also overlap somewhat with pathos in that positive emotions and feelings toward a specific person can oftentimes be extended to someone else’s argument. For example, a brand that has nothing to do with sports could still benefit from the endorsement of a well-loved athlete, just because people feel positive feelings about the athlete – not because of that athlete’s expertise  in the product they’re endorsing.

How to use logos, pathos and ethos

Logos, pathos and ethos combine to form the rhetorical triangle , also known as the Aristotelian triangle. As you’d expect, the three sides (or corners) of the triangle reflect the three appeals, but there’s also another layer of meaning. Specifically, the three sides symbolise the relationship between the speaker , the audience and the message .

Without getting too philosophical, the key takeaway here is that logos, pathos and ethos are all tools that you can use to present a persuasive argument . However, how much you use each tool needs to be informed by careful consideration of who your audience is and what message you’re trying to convey to them.

For example, if you’re writing a research paper for a largely scientific audience, you’ll likely lean more heavily on the logos . Conversely, if you’re presenting a speech in which you argue for greater social justice, you may lean more heavily on the pathos to win over the hearts and minds of your audience.

Simply put, by understanding the relationship between yourself (as the person making the argument), your audience , and your message , you can strategically employ the three rhetorical appeals to persuade, engage, and connect with your audience more effectively in any context. Use these tools wisely and you’ll quickly notice what a difference they can make to your ability to communicate and more importantly, to persuade .

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 ...

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

Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion

• Writing Research Papers
• Writing Essays
• English Grammar
• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

You may be surprised to learn that much of your life consists of constructing arguments. If you ever plead a case to your parents—in order to extend your curfew or to get a new gadget, for example—you are using persuasive strategies. When you discuss music with friends and agree or disagree with them about the merits of one singer compared to another, you are also using strategies for persuasion.

Indeed, when you engage in these "arguments" with your parents and friends, you are instinctively using ancient strategies for persuasion that were identified by the Greek philosopher Aristotle a few thousand years ago. Aristotle called his ingredients for persuasion pathos , logos , and ethos .

Persuasion Tactics and Homework

When you write a research paper , write a speech , or participate in a debate , you also use the persuasion strategies mentioned above. You come up with an idea (a thesis) and then construct an argument to convince readers that your idea is sound.

You should become familiar with pathos, logos, and ethos for two reasons: First, you need to develop your own skills at crafting a good argument so that others will take you seriously. Second, you must develop the ability to identify a really weak argument, stance, claim, or position when you see or hear it.

Logos Defined

Logos refers to an appeal to reason based on logic. Logical conclusions come from assumptions and decisions derived from weighing a collection of solid facts and statistics . Academic arguments (research papers) rely on logos.

An example of an argument that relies on logos is the argument that smoking is harmful based on the evidence that, "When burned, cigarettes create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are toxic," according to the American Lung Association. Notice that the statement above uses specific numbers. Numbers are sound and logical.

An everyday example of an appeal to logos is the argument that Lady Gaga is more popular than Justin Bieber because Gaga's fan pages collected 10 million more Facebook fans than Bieber's. As a researcher, your job is to find statistics and other facts to back up your claims. When you do this, you are appealing to your audience with logic or logos.

Ethos Defined

Trustworthiness is important in research. You must trust your sources, and your readers must trust you. The example above concerning logos contained two examples that were based on hard facts (numbers). However, one example comes from the American Lung Association. The other comes from Facebook fan pages. You should ask yourself: Which of these sources do you suppose is more credible?

Anyone can start a Facebook page. Lady Gaga may have 50 different fan pages, and each page may contain duplicate "fans." The fan page argument is probably not very sound (even though it seems logical). Ethos refers to the credibility of the person posing the argument or stating the facts.

The facts provided by the American Lung Association are probably more persuasive than those provided by fan pages since the American Lung Association has been around for more than 100 years. At first glance, you might think that your own credibility is out of your control when it comes to posing academic arguments, but that is incorrect.

Even if you write an academic paper on a topic that is outside your area of expertise, you can improve your credibility—using ethos to persuade—by coming across as a professional by citing credible sources and making your writing error-free and concise.

Pathos Defined

Pathos refers to appealing to a person by influencing his emotions. Pathos is involved in the strategy of convincing the audience by invoking feelings through their own imaginations. You appeal through pathos when you try to convince your parents of something. Consider this statement:

"Mom, there is clear evidence that cellphones save lives in emergency situations."

While that statement is true, the real power lies in the emotions that you will likely invoke in your parents. What mother wouldn't envision a broken-down automobile perched by the side of a busy highway upon hearing that statement?

Emotional appeals are extremely effective, but they can be tricky. There may or may not be a place for pathos in your research paper . For example, you may be writing an argumentative essay about the death penalty.

Ideally, your paper should contain a logical argument. You should appeal to logos by including statics to support your view such as data that suggests that the death penalty does/does not cut down on crime (there's plenty of research both ways).

Use Appeals to Emotion Sparingly

You may also use pathos by interviewing someone who witnessed an execution (on the anti-death penalty side) or someone who found closure when a criminal was executed (on the pro-death penalty side). Generally, however, academic papers should employ appeals to emotions sparingly. A long paper that is purely based on emotions is not considered very professional.

Even when you are writing about an emotionally charged, controversial issue like the death penalty, you can't write a paper that is all emotion and opinion. The teacher, in that circumstance, will likely assign a failing grade because you haven't provided a sound (logical) argument.

• “ What's In a Cigarette? ”  American Lung Association,
• Use Social Media to Teach Ethos, Pathos and Logos
• Logos (Rhetoric)
• Words, Phrases, and Arguments to Use in Persuasive Writing
• Pathos in Rhetoric
• Artistic Proofs: Definitions and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Ethos in Classical Rhetoric
• What Is a Rhetorical Device? Definition, List, Examples
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition
• What is an Appeal in Rhetoric?
• An Introduction to Academic Writing
• AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
• How to Write a Persuasive Essay
• Proof in Rhetoric
• Situated Ethos in Rhetoric
• How to Write and Structure a Persuasive Speech
• What Is Phronesis?

3 Modes of Persuasion — Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

July 19, 2023

When structuring an argument, whether verbally or in written form, it is important to consider not only the ideas but the ways in which they might be persuasive. This article will explore the three primary modes of persuasion—ethos, pathos, and logos—and demonstrate the various ways you might use them to your advantage. They fall under the heading of rhetoric, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “the art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others.” These three modes of persuasion were first detailed in Aristotle’s Rhetoric . We’ll begin with the question, what is ethos in persuasion? Then we’ll discuss the pathos persuasive technique and, finally, logos in persuasion.

What Is Ethos in Persuasion?

While the term “ethos” may be unfamiliar you have certainly encountered its use in your day-to-day life. Of the three modes of persuasion, ethos is one that appeals to the speaker’s character or expertise. (The word itself has roots in the Latin and Greek words for “character.”) In this sense the use of ethos is contextual. It relies on some degree of shared knowledge between speaker and listener.

Here are two examples of ethos in practice:

• “As a licensed nutritionist, I strongly recommend you eliminate dairy from your diet.”
• “As a scholar of baroque architecture, I can assure you this local church is nothing out of the ordinary.”

What Is Ethos in Persuasion? (Continued)

Both of these examples use a common construction (“As a…”) in order to establish authority. This construction foregrounds the use of ethos and, as you might notice in the second example, can create a somewhat condescending tone. When we’re looking for it, this particular use of ethos is quite obvious. In everyday usage, however, we often find subtle ways of establishing authority. This might mean citing names or ideas or using a particular linguistic register. Ethos is working on a subtle level far more often than we realize. So, it’s important to keep asking ourselves, what is ethos in persuasion? Whether or not we recognize it for what it is, the persuasive effect is undeniable.

What Is Ethos in Persuasion? — Endorsements

Endorsements—by celebrities, authorities, or other trusted figures—are another example of ethos functioning as one of the modes of persuasion. Do political endorsements ever affect your choice of which candidate to support? How about a blurb on the back cover of a book? If a writer you admire—or a Nobel Prize winner or a former heavyweight champion of the world—describes the book as “life-changing” or a “must-read” or “absolutely spellbinding from start to finish” does it make you want to check out the book for yourself?

Pathos Persuasive Technique

Pathos, the second of the three modes of persuasion, involves an appeal to emotion. This is different from the speaker establishing their own authority. With the pathos persuasive technique, a speaker attempts to stir up emotion in their listener. This is in an effort to bring them to a desired conclusion. There is a wide range of emotions that one might appeal to when using pathos as mode of persuasion. In Rhetoric , Aristotle identified seven emotional dichotomies. These are:

• Anger/Calmness
• Friendship/Enmity
• Fear/Confidence
• Shame/Shamelessness
• Kindness/Unkindness
• Pity/Indignation
• Envy/Emulation

The pathos persuasive technique might involve creating one of these emotions. Thereby the listener might become more receptive to a desired conclusion. On the other hand, the pathos persuasive technique could involve counteracting one of these emotions in the direction of its opposite. It is often effective to move across these dichotomies, activating a nuanced spectrum of emotion in the listener.

For example, if a speaker is attempting to build political support it could be useful to drum up anger towards their opposition. At the same, however, too much reliance on anger will eventually become apparent to an audience. To this end, the speaker will want to fold in moments of calm reflection and create empathy toward the people they are promising to help. This technique would engage with a number of the dichotomies listed above, perhaps most clearly Anger/Calmness and Friendship/Enmity.

Pathos Persuasive Technique — Literary Devices

Literary devices are excellent tools for incorporating the pathos persuasive technique into your writing and speech. Literary devices can create rhythms and emphasize sonic or structural qualities that are particularly compelling. These effects will likely be familiar to you from English classrooms. A rhyme scheme or a metrical pattern, for example, can make a conclusion feel inevitable. Consider for instance the final stanza of John Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” (In this context, “thou” refers to the urn.) Keats writes,

O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede Of marble men and maidens overwrought, With forest branches and the trodden weed; Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral! When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Isn’t there a sense that this is the only way the poem could’ve ended? That this is the only adequate conclusion? This early 19th-century literary example is clearly quite different from how you will be using the pathos persuasive technique. It does demonstrate, however, how pathos can operate through the use of literary devices. How language itself (rather than what’s being said) can be inherently persuasive. To this end, there is a wide range of literary devices that it will be helpful to familiarize yourself with.

Logos in Persuasion

Logos in persuasion refers to a mode of persuasion that relies on logic-based reason. This means structuring an argument in terms of premises (which are similar to hypotheses), supporting evidence, and conclusions. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two types of logic that it will be helpful to understand.

Logos in Persuasion — Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning involves proving that a conclusion is incontrovertibly true. This is based on the truth of its premises and the ways in which they lead to a conclusion. Here is an example.

• Premise 1: Napoleon was human.
• Premise 2: All humans have mothers.
• Conclusion: Napoleon had a mother.

This example is based on the logical rule that if A=B and B=C then A=C. This rule, however, doesn’t imply that the premises are true (i.e. that A=B and B=C). The conclusion can only be proven to be true if the premises are taken to be true as well. In this example, there isn’t much to argue with, but the logical structure also has the potential to give a false impression of validity.

Logos in Persuasion — Inductive Reasoning

The above example of deductive reasoning proves (or at least claims to prove) the truth of a specific statement. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, often brings us to more general conclusions. Instead of resulting in a definite, provable conclusion, inductive reasoning results in a probable one. This is the form of reasoning that we use most commonly in our day to day lives. While not definitive, inductive reasoning leads to valid conclusions that are often more compelling than those arrived at through deductive reasoning. As mentioned already, deductive reasoning can at times feel manipulative and overly formal.

Logos in Persuasion — Inductive Reasoning (Inference)

Inference is one of the most common forms of inductive reasoning. An inference is defined most simply as “an idea or conclusion that’s drawn from evidence and meaning.” This could mean recognizing a pattern and reaching a conclusion based on that. For example, based on the fact that the sun has risen each morning for as long as I can remember, I can infer that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. The conclusion here is that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The logic doesn’t prove this conclusion—the earth could stop rotating or the sun could suddenly extinguish—but, as you can tell, it’s still quite persuasive.

3 Modes of Persuasion — Practical Applications

Having a clear sense of these three modes of persuasion will be helpful when it comes to constructing an argument in a wide variety of contexts. These are good to keep in mind in the context of a job interview or when writing a statement of purpose for graduate school or even when you’re struggling to convey an idea to a friend.

Thinking in terms of ethos, pathos and logos is an especially good way to improve your public speaking skills . A dynamic speech will generally incorporate each of these modes of persuasion. So, if it feels like something might be missing, or if the tone of your speech seems to slacken, one recourse is to identify the modes of persuasion you are using and to find ways of incorporating others.

A speech that relies entirely on the pathos persuasive technique, for example, could start to feel somewhat redundant. If it goes on for too long it could appear to lack a logical argument or sense of authority. Switching to logos in persuasion or asking yourself, what is ethos in persuasion?, are good ways to keep the listener on their toes. When the listener gets the sense that they know exactly what will come next they often tune out. Even a powerful, and morally justified, appeal to anger will begin to seem rote after some time. Just as an excessive reliance on one’s character or authority (ethos) could have the listener rolling their eyes.

3 Modes of Persuasion — Final Thoughts

As a way to remember the three modes of persuasion, it will be helpful to associate one word with each of them. For ethos, think character. For pathos, think emotion. With logos, just change the last two letters and you have “logic.”

For further practice, try going through a piece of persuasive writing and sorting the paper into the modes of persuasion it is employing. You can use a different colored highlighter for each mode. Likewise, this can also be a good way to edit your own writing. Organizing arguments according to the mode they are employing will give you a sense of the piece’s balance. This can offer insight into how you might revise. It’s important to consider the audience and how the piece will likely be received. Depending on context, different balances of ethos, pathos, and logos will be desired. A political speech, for instance, might rely on pathos while an academic paper should be more heavily skewed towards logos.

In addition to ethos, pathos, and logos—which we can think of as rhetorical modes—there are a number of rhetorical devices that it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with. These devices will offer a plethora of ways to deploy your understanding of the three modes of persuasion, providing a template for how you might keep a reader or listener engaged.

• College Success
• High School Success

Emmett Lewis

Emmett holds a BA in Philosophy from Vassar College and is currently completing an MFA in Writing at Columbia University. Previously, he served as a writing instructor within the Columbia Artists/Teachers community as well as a Creative Writing Teaching Fellow at Columbia, where he taught poetry workshops. In addition, Emmett is a member of the Poetry Board at the Columbia Journal , and his work has been published in HAD , Otoliths , and Some Kind of Opening , among others.

• 2-Year Colleges
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Private High School Spotlight
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

I am a... Student Student Parent Counselor Educator Other First Name Last Name Email Address Zip Code Area of Interest Business Computer Science Engineering Fine/Performing Arts Humanities Mathematics STEM Pre-Med Psychology Social Studies/Sciences Submit

• Features for Creative Writers
• Features for Work
• Features for Higher Education
• Features for Teachers
• Features for Non-Native Speakers
• Learn Blog Grammar Guide Community Events FAQ
• Grammar Guide

How to Write a Persuasive Essay: Tips and Tricks

Allison Bressmer

Most composition classes you’ll take will teach the art of persuasive writing. That’s a good thing.

Knowing where you stand on issues and knowing how to argue for or against something is a skill that will serve you well both inside and outside of the classroom.

Persuasion is the art of using logic to prompt audiences to change their mind or take action , and is generally seen as accomplishing that goal by appealing to emotions and feelings.

A persuasive essay is one that attempts to get a reader to agree with your perspective.

Ready for some tips on how to produce a well-written, well-rounded, well-structured persuasive essay? Just say yes. I don’t want to have to write another essay to convince you!

How Do I Write a Persuasive Essay?

What are some good topics for a persuasive essay, how do i identify an audience for my persuasive essay, how do you create an effective persuasive essay, how should i edit my persuasive essay.

Your persuasive essay needs to have the three components required of any essay: the introduction , body , and conclusion .

That is essay structure. However, there is flexibility in that structure.

There is no rule (unless the assignment has specific rules) for how many paragraphs any of those sections need.

Although the components should be proportional; the body paragraphs will comprise most of your persuasive essay.

How Do I Start a Persuasive Essay?

As with any essay introduction, this paragraph is where you grab your audience’s attention, provide context for the topic of discussion, and present your thesis statement.

TIP 1: Some writers find it easier to write their introductions last. As long as you have your working thesis, this is a perfectly acceptable approach. From that thesis, you can plan your body paragraphs and then go back and write your introduction.

TIP 2: Avoid “announcing” your thesis. Don’t include statements like this:

• “In my essay I will show why extinct animals should (not) be regenerated.”
• “The purpose of my essay is to argue that extinct animals should (not) be regenerated.”

Announcements take away from the originality, authority, and sophistication of your writing.

Instead, write a convincing thesis statement that answers the question "so what?" Why is the topic important, what do you think about it, and why do you think that? Be specific.

How Many Paragraphs Should a Persuasive Essay Have?

This body of your persuasive essay is the section in which you develop the arguments that support your thesis. Consider these questions as you plan this section of your essay:

• What arguments support your thesis?
• What is the best order for your arguments?
• What evidence do you have?
• Will you address the opposing argument to your own?
• How can you conclude convincingly?

TIP: Brainstorm and do your research before you decide which arguments you’ll focus on in your discussion. Make a list of possibilities and go with the ones that are strongest, that you can discuss with the most confidence, and that help you balance your rhetorical triangle .

What Should I Put in the Conclusion of a Persuasive Essay?

The conclusion is your “mic-drop” moment. Think about how you can leave your audience with a strong final comment.

And while a conclusion often re-emphasizes the main points of a discussion, it shouldn’t simply repeat them.

TIP 1: Be careful not to introduce a new argument in the conclusion—there’s no time to develop it now that you’ve reached the end of your discussion!

TIP 2 : As with your thesis, avoid announcing your conclusion. Don’t start your conclusion with “in conclusion” or “to conclude” or “to end my essay” type statements. Your audience should be able to see that you are bringing the discussion to a close without those overused, less sophisticated signals.

If your instructor has assigned you a topic, then you’ve already got your issue; you’ll just have to determine where you stand on the issue. Where you stand on your topic is your position on that topic.

Your position will ultimately become the thesis of your persuasive essay: the statement the rest of the essay argues for and supports, intending to convince your audience to consider your point of view.

If you have to choose your own topic, use these guidelines to help you make your selection:

• Choose an issue you truly care about
• Choose an issue that is actually debatable

Simple “tastes” (likes and dislikes) can’t really be argued. No matter how many ways someone tries to convince me that milk chocolate rules, I just won’t agree.

It’s dark chocolate or nothing as far as my tastes are concerned.

Similarly, you can’t convince a person to “like” one film more than another in an essay.

You could argue that one movie has superior qualities than another: cinematography, acting, directing, etc. but you can’t convince a person that the film really appeals to them.

Once you’ve selected your issue, determine your position just as you would for an assigned topic. That position will ultimately become your thesis.

Until you’ve finalized your work, consider your thesis a “working thesis.”

This means that your statement represents your position, but you might change its phrasing or structure for that final version.

When you’re writing an essay for a class, it can seem strange to identify an audience—isn’t the audience the instructor?

Your instructor will read and evaluate your essay, and may be part of your greater audience, but you shouldn’t just write for your teacher.

Think about who your intended audience is.

For an argument essay, think of your audience as the people who disagree with you—the people who need convincing.

That population could be quite broad, for example, if you’re arguing a political issue, or narrow, if you’re trying to convince your parents to extend your curfew.

Once you’ve got a sense of your audience, it’s time to consult with Aristotle. Aristotle’s teaching on persuasion has shaped communication since about 330 BC. Apparently, it works.

Aristotle taught that in order to convince an audience of something, the communicator needs to balance the three elements of the rhetorical triangle to achieve the best results.

Those three elements are ethos , logos , and pathos .

Ethos relates to credibility and trustworthiness. How can you, as the writer, demonstrate your credibility as a source of information to your audience?

How will you show them you are worthy of their trust?

• You show you’ve done your research: you understand the issue, both sides
• You show respect for the opposing side: if you disrespect your audience, they won’t respect you or your ideas

Logos relates to logic. How will you convince your audience that your arguments and ideas are reasonable?

You provide facts or other supporting evidence to support your claims.

That evidence may take the form of studies or expert input or reasonable examples or a combination of all of those things, depending on the specific requirements of your assignment.

Remember: if you use someone else’s ideas or words in your essay, you need to give them credit.

ProWritingAid's Plagiarism Checker checks your work against over a billion web-pages, published works, and academic papers so you can be sure of its originality.

Find out more about ProWritingAid’s Plagiarism checks.

Pathos relates to emotion. Audiences are people and people are emotional beings. We respond to emotional prompts. How will you engage your audience with your arguments on an emotional level?

• You make strategic word choices : words have denotations (dictionary meanings) and also connotations, or emotional values. Use words whose connotations will help prompt the feelings you want your audience to experience.
• You use emotionally engaging examples to support your claims or make a point, prompting your audience to be moved by your discussion.

Be mindful as you lean into elements of the triangle. Too much pathos and your audience might end up feeling manipulated, roll their eyes and move on.

An “all logos” approach will leave your essay dry and without a sense of voice; it will probably bore your audience rather than make them care.

Once you’ve got your essay planned, start writing! Don’t worry about perfection, just get your ideas out of your head and off your list and into a rough essay format.

After you’ve written your draft, evaluate your work. What works and what doesn’t? For help with evaluating and revising your work, check out this ProWritingAid post on manuscript revision .

After you’ve evaluated your draft, revise it. Repeat that process as many times as you need to make your work the best it can be.

When you’re satisfied with the content and structure of the essay, take it through the editing process .

Grammatical or sentence-level errors can distract your audience or even detract from the ethos—the authority—of your work.

You don’t have to edit alone! ProWritingAid’s Realtime Report will find errors and make suggestions for improvements.

You can even use it on emails to your professors:

Try ProWritingAid with a free account.

How Can I Improve My Persuasion Skills?

You can develop your powers of persuasion every day just by observing what’s around you.

• How is that advertisement working to convince you to buy a product?
• How is a political candidate arguing for you to vote for them?
• How do you “argue” with friends about what to do over the weekend, or convince your boss to give you a raise?
• How are your parents working to convince you to follow a certain academic or career path?

As you observe these arguments in action, evaluate them. Why are they effective or why do they fail?

How could an argument be strengthened with more (or less) emphasis on ethos, logos, and pathos?

Every argument is an opportunity to learn! Observe them, evaluate them, and use them to perfect your own powers of persuasion.

Be confident about grammar

Check every email, essay, or story for grammar mistakes. Fix them before you press send.

Allison Bressmer is a professor of freshman composition and critical reading at a community college and a freelance writer. If she isn’t writing or teaching, you’ll likely find her reading a book or listening to a podcast while happily sipping a semi-sweet iced tea or happy-houring with friends. She lives in New York with her family. Connect at linkedin.com/in/allisonbressmer.

Get started with ProWritingAid

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via :

Understanding Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: The Foundations of Persuasive Speaking

• Carolyn Manion Kinnie
• January 30, 2024

Table of Contents

Here at The Speaker Lab, we talk a lot about how to launch a speaking business. Usually, we focus on the “business” part. Fundamentals like establishing your pipeline and setting your speaker fee are key to really succeeding as a speaker. But mastering the business side will only take you so far if your talk isn’t persuasive! How do you make sure your message sticks with your audience? That’s what we’re diving into today. Learning how to speak persuasively will help you deliver a compelling talk that listeners remember. And what do we find at the heart of persuasive speaking? Three age old terms coined by an ancient Greek: ethos, pathos, and logos. 

Today we’re breaking down how ethos, pathos, and logos play a role in persuasive speaking in any field, on any topic. If you’re busy crafting your signature talk , it’s easy to get caught up in the weeds and forget to look at the big picture. That’s why we’re getting back to the basics–all the way back to the fourth century B.C.

Aristotle and Persuasive Rhetoric  

Aristotle’s Rhetoric is one of the foundational philosophical works at the basis of what we consider persuasive speaking. In the Rhetoric, he explains that ethos, pathos, and logos are three ways that any speech–no matter what kind of speech–can have a persuasive effect. So what exactly do these words mean? 

Ethos refers to the character of the speaker. Good, bad, old, young, famous, obscure…any attribute that belongs to the speaker as a person . Would you more willingly listen to someone whose character is honest and trustworthy or a well-known con man? The ancient Greeks felt the same way. Listeners are more likely to take advice from a speaker whose character they trust.

Keep in mind that character qualities in a speaker can be positive or negative depending on context. A speaker’s age on either end of the spectrum can give a negative impression of either inexperience or outdatedness. But youthfulness characterized by drive and ambition (or old age characterized by wisdom and self-reflection) comes across extremely favorably, especially to other young people! 

If ethos centers on the speaker, pathos centers on the audience. A speaker leveraging e thos appeals to their own character, one using pathos appeals to emotion. To master pathos, you must influence your audience’s emotional state throughout your talk in a way that contributes to your message. While your credibility goes a long way toward winning their trust, if you fail to evoke the right emotions you will quickly lose their interest. You can be the most rational, data-driven speaker and ruin the impact of your talk by “giving someone the ick,” as the kids say these days! By using vivid words and dynamic nonverbal cues, you can profoundly impact your audience’s feelings as they listen to your talk.

Logos is where the rubber meets the road. This is your argument–how you prove your point with evidence and logic. No good speech can go without logos, though it can play a greater or lesser role depending on the context. Logos is especially important when the desired impact of your talk requires big changes from your audience in thought or action. Industries and events that rely heavily on research and data will also have high expectations for the logos in your talk. 

Free Download: 6 Proven Steps to Book More Paid Speaking Gigs in 2024​

Download our 18-page guide and start booking more paid speaking gigs today!

Applying ethos, pathos, and logos to your own talk.

Now, we’ll go through a few practical applications of ethos, pathos, and logos to your professional speaking business. As you book speaking gigs, keep in mind how your marketing, content, and delivery can reflect these principles. We don’t intend to burden you with extra steps on the route to your next speaking gig. You don’t have to be a Greek philosopher to figure this out! Often, it just requires a little extra introspection as you compose and rehearse your talk.

Applying Ethos

Your ethos  is the story your personal brand tells on and off the stage. Focus on establishing expertise, authority, and credibility before and during your talk.  Your audience will find you more persuasive if they already trust you. That’s why it’s important to write your speaker bio effectively with references to your experience in the field.

Relating to your audience in your talk will also establish a powerful ethos. If they know that you are someone like them, they are more likely to agree with your argument. Tell stories that connect your experiences to those of your audience.

Citing data and known authorities also contributes to a positive ethos. Without realizing it, your audience will associate the authorities to whom you appeal with you. Appeal to inspiring figures and well-reputed sources already trusted by your audience–they will trust you. Appealing to a screenshot of a random tweet you found on the internet or treating unverified theories as facts will simply discredit you.  

Offstage interactions play a huge role in  ethos  too. Try to take the time to chat with your audience after your talk, even if it’s just for a few minutes. Make friends with mission-driven speakers in your field who are easy to work with and genuinely care about their audience. Event planners and audience members alike will see you as someone accessible rather than aloof. As your reputation precedes you to each speaking engagement, back it up with the version of yourself who goes onstage.

Applying Pathos 

Swaying your audience’s emotions can rarely carry your entire argument. But it can be a huge help. Feeling a variety of emotions will keep your listeners from getting bored and put them in the right headspace to receive the information you want to communicate. 

Think of your talk as an emotional journey on which you embark with your audience. When you write your speech section by section, think about what you want the audience to be feeling at each point. Anticipation, as you introduce a meaningful story that leaves them breathless? Somber gravity, as you present facts and data about a troubling situation to which you present solutions? Enthusiasm, as you offer a transformative business solution that, while difficult, might get them out of a rut? Amusement, as you tell a funny joke to hook their attention? 

You are their guide on this journey, so it’s up to you to tell them (without literally telling them) how to feel. Delivery and nonverbal communication are key here. Voice intonations, hand gestures, pauses, and facial expressions can add emotional weight to even the driest of phrases. Often, the best way to elicit a new emotion is to tell a story ! Stories can support your message, offer humorous diversion, or transition to a new topic…all while guiding emotions along the way. 

Applying Logos 

Neither ethos nor pathos directly concern the content of your talk, but logos does. Logos is the logical argument you make. You can ruin the effects of great pathos and ethos by failing to adequately support your argument. Sure, if your main purpose is to hype up your audience, you will likely rely more on pathos. But if you fail to connect everything you say to the point or (even worse) cite exaggerated facts or falsehoods, any listening ear will immediately discredit what you have to say. On the other hand, if you struggle to emotionally connect with your audience and have little experience in your field, great logos can still carry your point across and convince a skeptical audience. 

Think of Logos as simply speaking the truth with clarity. Back up your claims and cite any important data or statistics. Use compelling examples from client results you were responsible for with or well-established research. Avoid fallacies and over-fluffy modes of speaking that might throw your audience off. Many speakers try to cover up weak links in their argument with jargon or convoluted palaver. Don’t do that! If the data doesn’t back up your argument, it’s time to reevaluate your argument. 

Many speakers unintentionally obscure a good point by going off track. Your stories, jokes, and elaborations should all support one clear message. If you try to communicate too many messages at once, you’ll leave your audience adrift. Some tips? Replace long tangents with more relevant stories. For a talk on a broad topic, only delve into one or two examples in detail. If you’re speaking about something specific or granular, only give the most necessary background information. 

What Type Of Speaker Are You?

Click below to discover your Speaker Archetype and how to start getting booked and paid to speak!

Exemplary Persuasive Speeches

To wrap up, let’s look at some classic examples of how speakers use ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade their audiences. 

Winston Churchill’s address to Congress in December 1941 utilizes ethos remarkably well to assure the assembly that he is speaking as a friend, not a foreigner. He reminds them that his own mother was American. He emphasizes his understanding of the American system of representation as a “child of the House of Commons.” Then, he further details that the King himself gave him permission to meet with the president! This way, he appeals to two very venerable heads of authority. As he moves on into a grim but stirring vision of the war, its past present and future, his credibility and trustworthiness are well-established. 

Marc Antony’s speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a timeless example of powerful pathos . He immediately plays into the emotions of his audience by reminding them that his purpose is not to deliver a panegyric, but to bury a friend. “When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept” he reminds the Romans, giving them cause for self-reflection upon whether their empathy matched Caesar’s. As if his appeal “You all did love him once” was not stirring enough? He finishes off “My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, / And I must pause till it come back to me.” Absolutely gutting! (Incidentally, Marc Antony also leverages some reverse psychology ethos by referring to Caesar’s murderer Brutus as “an honourable man” throughout.)

Frederick Douglass ’ moving address “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” is a long speech worth reading. Indeed, it could be used as an example for all three pillars of persuasion! He appeals especially to logos by examining the documents of the American Founding and pointing out the hypocrisy with which they have long been interpreted regarding slavery. Then he declares: “Take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.” He supports his point with facts (the text of the constitution was easy to fact-check) and clear, concise argumentation. The powerful impact of his words even today stands a testament to his mastery of rhetoric.  

You should always use a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos to speak persuasively. Your niche will likely determine which you spend the most time emphasizing. For example, a motivational speaker in an intensely personal field like relationships, grief, or mental health will likely need to leverage a lot of pathos. A speaker who tries to convince professionals of any kind to make big changes will need a great deal of logos to show why their proposed solution is better than “what we’ve always done.” And any speaker in any field offering a potentially controversial solution will need to establish an ethos that is authoritative and trustworthy.

Ethos, pathos, and logos have played an integral role in the art of persuasive speaking for over 2000 years. Even the greatest speakers continue working on this skill well into their careers. While we are no longer Greek orators in marble amphitheaters, Aristotle’s principles can help you craft your speech and finesse your delivery for maximum impact. 

• Last Updated: March 7, 2024

Explore Related Resources

Learn How You Could Get Your First (Or Next) Paid Speaking Gig In 90 Days or Less

We receive thousands of applications every day, but we only work with the top 5% of speakers .

Book a call with our team to get started — you’ll learn why the vast majority of our students get a paid speaking gig within 90 days of finishing our program .

If you’re ready to control your schedule, grow your income, and make an impact in the world – it’s time to take the first step. Book a FREE consulting call and let’s get you Booked and Paid to Speak ® .

About The Speaker Lab

We teach speakers how to consistently get booked and paid to speak.  Since 2015, we’ve helped thousands of speakers find clarity, confidence, and a clear path to make an impact.

Get Started

Let's connect.

[email protected]

Copyright ©2023 The Speaker Lab. All rights reserved.

Understand The Difference Between Ethos, Pathos, And Logos To Make Your Point

• What Is Ethos?
• What Is Pathos?
• What Is Logos?
• Examples Of Each
• What Are Mythos And Kairos?

During an argument, people will often say whatever is necessary to win. If that is the case, they would certainly need to understand the three modes of persuasion, also commonly known as the three rhetorical appeals: ethos , pathos , and logos . In short, these three words refer to three main methods that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. As you’re about to find out, the modes of persuasion are important because a speaker who knows how to effectively use them will have a significant advantage over someone who doesn’t.

The terms ethos , pathos , and logos and the theory of their use can be traced back to ancient Greece to the philosophy of Aristotle . Aristotle used these three concepts in his explanations of rhetoric , or the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience. For Aristotle, the three modes of persuasion specifically referred to the three major parts of an argument: the speaker ( ethos ), the argument itself ( logos ), and the audience ( pathos ). In particular, Aristotle focused on the speaker’s character, the logic and reason presented by an argument, and the emotional impact the argument had on an audience.

While they have ancient roots, these modes of persuasion are alive and well today. Put simply, ethos refers to persuasion based on the credibility or authority of the speaker, pathos refers to persuasion based on emotion, and logos refers to persuasion based on logic or reason.

By effectively using the three modes of persuasion with a large supply of rhetorical devices, a speaker or writer can become a master of rhetoric and win nearly any argument or win over any audience. Before they can do that, though, they must know exactly what ethos , pathos , and logos mean. Fortunately, we are going to look closely at each of these three ideas and see if they are really as effective as they are said to be.

⚡️ Quick summary

Ethos , pathos , and logos are the three classical modes of persuasion that a person can use to speak or write persuasively. Specifically:

• ethos (character): known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” This is the method in which a person relies on their credibility or character when making an appeal or an argument.
• pathos (emotions): known as “the appeal to emotion.” Pathos refers to the method of trying to persuade an audience by eliciting some kind of emotional reaction.
• logos (logic): known as “the appeal to reason.” This method involves using facts and logical reasoning to support an argument and persuade an audience.

What is ethos ?

The word ethos comes straight from Greek. In Greek, ethos literally translates to “habit,” “custom,” or “character.” Ethos is related to the words ethic and ethical , which are typically used to refer to behavior that is or isn’t acceptable for a particular person.

In rhetoric, the word ethos is used to refer to the character or reputation of the speaker. As a rhetorical appeal, ethos is known as “the appeal to authority” or “the appeal to credibility.” When it comes to ethos , one important consideration is how the speaker carries themself and how they present themselves to the audience: Does it seem like they know what they are talking about? Do they even believe the words they are saying? Are they an expert? Do they have some experience or skills that tell us we should listen to them?

Ethos is important in rhetoric because it often influences the opinion or mood of the audience. If a speaker seems unenthusiastic, unprepared, or inexperienced, the audience is more likely to discount the speaker’s argument regardless of what it even is. On the other hand, a knowledgeable, authoritative, confident speaker is much more likely to win an audience over.

Ethos often depends on more than just the argument itself. For example, a speaker’s word choice, grammar, and diction also contribute to ethos ; an audience may react more favorably toward a professional speaker who has a good grasp of industry jargon and enunciates clearly versus a speaker who lacks the necessary vocabulary and fails to enunciate. Ethos can also be influenced by nonverbal factors as well, such as posture, body language, eye contact, and even the speaker’s choice of clothing. For example, a military officer proudly wearing their uniform bedecked with medals will go a long way to establishing ethos without them saying a single word.

Here as a simple example of ethos :

• “As a former mayor of this city, I believe we can solve this crisis if we band together.”

The speaker uses ethos by alerting the audience of their credentials and experience. By doing so, they rely on their reputation to be more persuasive. This “as a…” method of establishing ethos is common, and you have probably seen it used in many persuasive advertisements and speeches.

What are open-ended questions and how can you use them effectively? Find out here.

What is pathos ?

In Greek, pathos literally translates to “suffering, experience, or sensation.” The word pathos is related to the words pathetic , sympathy , and empathy , which all have to do with emotions or emotional connections. Aristotle used the word pathos to refer to the emotional impact that an argument had on an audience; this usage is still mainly how pathos is used in rhetoric today.

As a rhetorical appeal, pathos is referred to as “the appeal to emotion.” Generally speaking, an author or speaker is using pathos when they are trying to persuade an audience by causing some kind of emotional reaction. When it comes to pathos , any and all emotions are on the table: sadness, fear, hope, joy, anger, lust, pity, etc.

As you probably know from your own life, emotions are a powerful motivating factor. For this reason, relying on pathos is often a smart and effective strategy for persuading an audience. Both positive and negative emotions can heavily influence an audience: for example, an audience will want to support a speaker whose position will make them happy, a speaker who wants to end their sadness, or a speaker who is opposed to something that makes them angry.

Here is a simple example of pathos :

• “Every day, the rainforests shrink and innocent animals are killed. We must do something about this calamitous trend before the planet we call our home is damaged beyond repair.”

Here, the author is trying to win over an audience by making them feel sad, concerned, or afraid. The author’s choice of words like “innocent” and “calamitous” enforce the fact that they are trying to rely on pathos .

What is logos ?

In Greek, the word logos literally translates to “word, reason, or discourse.” The word logos is related to many different words that have to do with reason, discourse, or knowledge, such as logic , logical , and any words that end in the suffixes -logy or -logue .

As a mode of persuasion and rhetorical appeal, logos is often referred to as “the appeal to reason.” If a speaker or author is relying on logos , they are typically reciting facts or providing data and statistics that support their argument. In a manner of speaking, logos does away with all of the bells and whistles of ethos and pathos and cuts to the chase by trying to present a rational argument.

Logos can be effective in arguments because, in theory, it is impossible to argue against truth and facts. An audience is more likely to agree with a speaker who can provide strong, factual evidence that shows their position is correct. On the flip side, an audience is less likely to support an argument that is flawed or entirely wrong. Going further, a speaker that presents a lot of supporting evidence and data to the audience is likely to come across as knowledgeable and someone to be listened to, which earns bonus points in ethos as well.

While Aristotle clearly valued an argument based on reason very highly, we know that logos alone doesn’t always effectively persuade an audience. In your own life, you have likely seen a rational, correct speaker lose an argument to a charismatic, authoritative speaker who may not have the facts right.

Here is a simple example of logos :

• “According to market research, sales of computer chips have increased by 300% in the last five years. Analysis of the industry tells us that the market share of computer chips is dominated by Asian manufacturers. It is clear that the Asian technology sector will continue to experience rapid growth for the foreseeable future.”

In this paragraph, the author is using data, statistics, and logical reasoning to make their argument. They clearly hope to use logos to try to convince an audience to agree with them.

Do you need persuading to take this quiz on identifying ethos, pathos, and logos? We think you’ll be a champion at it.

Examples of ethos , pathos , and logos

Ethos , pathos , and logos can all be employed to deliver compelling and persuasive arguments or to win over an audience. Let’s look at a variety of examples to see how different speakers and authors have turned to these modes of persuasion over the years.

“Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me […] You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?” —Marc Antony, Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

In this scene, Marc Antony is trying to win over the Roman people, so Shakespeare has Antony rely on ethos . Antony is establishing himself as both a person of authority in Rome (having the power to offer Caesar a crown) and an expert on Caesar’s true character (Antony was Caesar’s close friend and advisor).

“During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world’s first computer animated feature film, Toy Story , and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance.” —Steve Jobs, 2005

Here, Steve Jobs is providing his background–via humblebrag – of being a major figure in several different highly successful tech companies. Jobs is using ethos to provide substance to his words and make it clear to the audience that he knows what he is talking about and they should listen to him.

Make Your Writing Shine!

• By clicking "Sign Up", you are accepting Dictionary.com Terms & Conditions and Privacy policies.
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“Moreover, though you hate both him and his gifts with all your heart, yet pity the rest of the Achaeans who are being harassed in all their host; they will honour you as a god, and you will earn great glory at their hands. You might even kill Hector; he will come within your reach, for he is infatuated, and declares that not a Danaan whom the ships have brought can hold his own against him.” —Ulysses to Achilles, The Iliad by Homer

In this plea, Ulysses is doing his best to pile on the pathos . In one paragraph, Ulysses is attempting to appeal to several of Achilles’s emotions: his hatred of Hector, his infamous stubborn pride, his sympathy for civilians, and his desire for vengeance.

“I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest—quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

In this excerpt from his “I Have A Dream” speech, King is using pathos to accomplish two goals at once. First, he is connecting with his audience by making it clear is aware of their plight and suffering. Second, he is citing these examples to cause sadness or outrage in the audience. Both of these effects will make an audience interested in what he has to say and more likely to support his position.

Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech is recognizable and noteworthy for many reasons, including the rhetorical device he employs. Learn about it here.

“Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement.” —Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species , 1859

In this passage, Darwin is using logos by presenting a rational argument in support of natural selection. Darwin connects natural selection to established scientific knowledge to argue that it makes logical sense that animals would adapt to better survive in their environment.

“I often echo the point made by the climate scientist James Hansen: The accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases—some of which will envelop the planet for hundreds and possibly thousands of years—is now trapping as much extra energy daily as 500,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs would release every 24 hours. This is the crisis we face.” —Al Gore, “The Climate Crisis Is the Battle of Our Time, and We Can Win,” 2019

In this call to action, Al Gore uses logos to attempt to convince his audience of the significance of climate change. In order to do this, Gore both cites an expert in the field and provides a scientifically accurate simile to explain the scale of the effect that greenhouse gases have on Earth’s atmosphere.

What are mythos and kairos ?

Some modern scholars may also use terms mythos and kairos when discussing modes of persuasion or rhetoric in general.

Aristotle used the term mythos to refer to the plot or story structure of Greek tragedies, i.e., how a playwright ordered the events of the story to affect the audience. Today, mythos is most often discussed as a literary or poetic term rather than a rhetorical one. However, mythos may rarely be referred to as the “appeal to culture” or the “appeal to myth” if it is treated as an additional mode of persuasion. According to this viewpoint, a speaker/writer is using mythos if they try to persuade an audience using shared cultural customs or societal values.

A commonly cited example of mythos is King’s “I Have a Dream” speech quoted earlier. King says:

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ ”

Throughout the speech, King repeatedly uses American symbols and American history ( mythos ) to argue that all Americans should be outraged that Black Americans have been denied freedom and civil rights.

Some modern scholars may also consider kairos as an additional mode of persuasion. Kairos is usually defined as referring to the specific time and place that a speaker chooses to deliver their speech. For written rhetoric, the “place” instead refers to the specific medium or publication in which a piece of writing appears.

Unlike the other modes of persuasion, kairos relates to the context of a speech and how the appropriateness (or not) of a setting affects how effective a speaker is. Once again, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is a great example of the use of kairos . This speech was delivered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Clearly, King intended to use kairos to enhance the importance and timeliness of this landmark speech.

Make your communication as smooth as can be by learning about filler words and when you should, and shouldn't, use them.

Ways To Say

Synonym of the day

How to use Ethos, Pathos and Logos in a Persuasive Essay

Oct 21, 2023 | 0 comments

Oct 21, 2023 | Blog | 0 comments

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are three types of persuasion that an author or speaker can use to convince the audience. Ethos is the appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. Pathos is the appeal to emotion, and it’s a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response. Logos is the appeal to logic, and it uses logical reasoning as its main tool for persuasion.

This article will discuss using these three modes when writing your essay. The difference between ethos, pathos, and logos will be elaborated by ethos, pathos, and logos examples.

People Also Read

• What Is a Blue Book?- All You Need to Know as a Student
• The Role Of Feedback And Reflection In Improving Diagnostic Essay Writing Skills
• Understanding the Limitations of Survey-based Studies

What Is Logos? 

The third and final aspect of ethos, logos, is an appeal to logic. It attempts to persuade readers by using reason, rationality, and facts. You can use logos to present evidence for your thesis statement—using statistics or examples from the world around you—or it can be used as a standalone approach. Either way, logos are best when backed up by evidence from the real world.

Logos makes sense because it appeals to our rational minds: we use logic every day to make decisions (or not). We ask ourselves, “Is this a good idea?” or “Will this benefit me?” We weigh the pros and cons before acting on impulse; we think about consequences before making purchases; we run through a cost-benefit analysis before investing our time or money into something new. Logos tries its hardest not just because it makes sense but because it works!

Examples of Logos

Logos are often used in essays to support a claim, explain why something is true, or give an example. For example:

• “I can’t wait for our next meeting because it will be fun.” (explanation)
• “That’s not fair! You’re supposed to let me go first.” (reasoning)

Logos are especially useful when persuading someone or making your point clear. They’re also good for showing that you understand how things work or what makes them important. For example:

• “I know that many people think they need a degree to get a job in this field, but I think most employers value experience over education anyway.” (logical reasoning)

What Is Ethos

Ethos is an appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. Ethos is the Greek word for “character.” The rhetoric must establish trust with an audience to persuade them effectively. Effective ethos will make your audience feel more comfortable with you and more likely to believe what you say.

To establish ethos, you can refer to other people who have similar credentials, experience, or knowledge as yourself or else provide evidence that shows how your expertise has been beneficial in similar situations before (this makes it easier for others to accept your knowledge because they know how much experience you have).

Examples of Ethos 

Examples of Ethos:

• Speeches (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech)
• Advertisements (e.g., Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign)
• Literature and poetry (e.g., Edgar Allan Poe’s “ The Raven “)
• Journalism (e.g., the New York Times’ coverage of Hurricane Harvey)
• Politics (e.g., Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration speech)

In daily life, you can use examples of ethos to persuade people to get what you want or do what you ask them to do.

What Is Pathos?

Pathos is all about the emotional connection between the speaker and the audience. It’s an appeal to the senses and feelings of an audience, often through pity or sympathy.

Essentially, pathos is all about persuasion through emotion: it’s how you can use pathos in your writing (and in life) to influence people—and get them on your side.

Because when we’re moved by something, whether it be a person’s suffering or a cause we believe in, we are more likely to act on that feeling than if there were no emotion.

So, what emotions does pathos evoke? There are many ways for writers and speakers alike to use pathos in their work—but these three methods of persuasion will probably come up most often: empathy, fear, guilt/shame.

Examples of Pathos 

Here are some examples of how you can use pathos in various forms of writing:

• In advertising, an emotional appeal is often used to persuade viewers that a product will improve their lives. For example, one advertisement might portray a family enjoying time together using their new vacuum cleaner. Another advertisement might show a man alone at home watching TV and eating potato chips—but he could be happy if only he had this new brand of hot sauce!
• In speeches or debates, an emotional appeal is often used to encourage people to take action on something important to them or others. An activist might speak about how many animals have died yearly because they were trapped in animal testing labs—and ask everyone listening what they will do. A politician might talk about how his opponent’s policies won’t truly help people who need jobs; instead, he’ll ensure everyone has health insurance and gets paid more money for working full-time than if they were unemployed!
• Legal cases can include stories from witnesses or victims who experienced suffering because someone else committed wrongdoings against them (or even themselves). If you want someone else punished for stealing your car stereo system when all you did was walk outside your house one day and then come back later when there was nothing left where it should’ve been…then tell us why we should care!

Bonus: What Is Kairos?

Kairos is the right time to deliver your message.

It’s used in persuasive writing to take advantage of your audience’s current state of mind so they’re more likely to listen and act on whatever you’re trying to get across.

The best way to use kairos is by connecting with your reader emotionally—you want them to relate what you have written with their own experiences so that they can connect with what you are saying, whether it be about a product or an idea.

Examples of Kairos

Kairos is a Greek word meaning “the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment).” When the time is right, you do the right thing.

One of the most classic uses of kairos was in ancient Greece, when people would use it before speaking to kings and royalty. If someone had something important to say, they waited for a kairotic moment where both parties were available and in an appropriate mood to hear their speech.

You can use Kairos when you need to take advantage of an opportunity as soon as it arises. It’s similar to timeliness, but rather than just being on time, it’s more like jumping into action before anyone else has thought about doing so themselves! This can be useful when trying out new ideas or coming up with innovative solutions because you can come up with them before anyone else does, which means that other people will start thinking about them (which could give them ideas).

Final Thoughts on Ethos Pathos and Logos

Ethos, pathos, and logos are three important elements to consider when writing your essay.

• Ethos is the writer’s credibility, which you can establish by using facts and figures that are credible and relevant to the topic being discussed.
• Pathos is an appeal to emotion to create a connection with the reader, who will feel compelled to agree with your argument. Opening paragraphs of essays often use pathos because they set expectations for what will come later in the essay.
• Logos refers to appeals based on logic or reason rather than emotions or feelings—and, as such, relies on strong arguments supported by evidence (facts). You can use logos in any part of your essay, but especially at the end, where you want readers who did not initially agree with your point of view to change their minds after reading your supporting evidence.

Get Help from our Experts with your essay.

Our company is a professional writing service that helps students with essay writing. We have been offering this type of help to students for over 20 years, so we know what works and what does not in terms of academic success. Our team consists of highly qualified experts ready to provide you with the best possible assistance at any process stage, from initial brainstorming to final editing. In addition, we use advanced tools such as Grammarly to ensure that your written composition is flawless and fully consistent with all academic standards.

We can help you in many ways:

• Developing an outline for your essay by guiding how it should look and where each paragraph should go;
• Writing an entire paper from scratch if you don’t have enough time or confidence;
• Revising existing essays according to your instructions (you can find examples here);

I am dedicated to creating engaging blog posts that provide valuable insights and advice to help students excel in their studies. From study tips to time management strategies, my goal is to empower students to reach their full potential.

• Best 10 Persuasive Essay Examples for Students
• Essay writing: Fresh Revision Ideas

Most Popular Articles

Racism thesis statement example, how to rephrase a thesis statement, capstone project topic suggestions, how to write an abortion essay, should students wear school uniforms essay, list causal essay topics write, respect essay, signal words, great synonyms, informative speech examples, essay writing guide, introduction paragraph for an essay, argumentative essay writing, essay outline templates, write an autobiographical essay, personal narrative essay ideas, descriptive essay writing, how to write a reflective-essay, how to write a lab report abstract, how to write a grant proposal, point of view in an essay, debate topics for youth at church, theatre research paper topics, privacy overview.

To Kill a Mockingbird Persuasive

This essay about “To Kill a Mockingbird” examines Harper Lee’s timeless masterpiece, highlighting its exploration of themes such as racial injustice, moral integrity, and societal resilience. Through Atticus Finch’s principled defense and Scout’s perspective, the text into the complexities of prejudice and the enduring quest for justice. It underscores the novel’s relevance in today’s world, urging readers to confront systemic oppression and work towards a more equitable future.

How it works

Winy opus magnum defence harp, to “kill mockingbird,” is a masterpiece, that outstrips time and literary place, weaves a tapestry themes and characters, that ring deeply with readers through insuperable generations profonds. Place despite basis American midday dans-chargé, story defence ouvre he with mixture sharpness and urgency rare, invites readers to contrast he trues bulky from prejudice, ethics, and dynamic complex society.

In a heart, to “kill mockingbird” link one accuses an act racial injustice and corrosions things systematic discrimination hot.

Through a lens domestic-private chaffinch principle chaffinch advocate Atticus and his son jeune propose Scout-lee deeply put on an anchor he prejudices, that leak a city Maycomb invented. Court above Tom Robinson, black man faussement defendant aggression white woman, serves a strict test for research disproportions authority and prerogative, that props up the public mode absolute oils. In vexation from destroys a certificate innocence Tom, sentence a judge decorates no hunts a true, and authority racial prejudice perfidious one dégrise an image injustices, that continues plague societies in one whole world.

Unit, between a black, to “kill mockingbird” too offers weak lights hope and resiliency. Through nonfrémit obligation Atticus to the justice and moral integrity, defence presents presentation insuperable ethic bravery in a person adversity. Atticus defence Tom Robinson acharnée stands so as precept one yields processing authority compassion and compassion, promising readers, to pass a border their clean possibilities étroite and to stand in solidarity with weighs minor and burdened.

In an era marked fights, rajeunies for justice and main shareholder public racial, appropriateness, to “kill mockingbird” remains undiminished. Ill-timed narrative talk defence so as appeal loud for self-examination and collective action, convinces readers to contrast he inheritances systematization oppresses and to train on setting despite anymore so as blow and just future. Because we he grab with problems inequality, cruelty, and structural injustice constabulary racial persistent, employments, to “kill mockingbird” offer priceless penetrating in authority compassion, solidarity, and relentless hunts a patient justice.

? conclusion, to “kill stands mockingbird” so as headlight clarity and moral public consciousness, promising readers, to contrast he trues our humanity divide bulky and to attach he more inclusive and compassionate society. Through his themes and indelible ill-timed characters, news continuous defence to inspire and to provoke, calls us from deep inclination despite a change, that fallouts in borders each of us. Because we navigate complications our actual moment, at a case, we attentively flow employments, to “kill mockingbird” and to undertake a walk on setting despite rapid, one more in arrives for unit.

Cite this page

To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive. (2024, May 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/

"To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive." PapersOwl.com , 1 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/ [Accessed: 1 May. 2024]

"To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive." PapersOwl.com, May 01, 2024. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/

"To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive," PapersOwl.com , 01-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/. [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). To Kill A Mockingbird Persuasive . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/to-kill-a-mockingbird-persuasive/ [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• 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