Alabama House Democratic Caucus applaud court ruling; say “fair elections begin with fair maps”
On Wednesday, the Alabama House Democratic Caucus released a statement applauding Tuesday’s federal court decision to appoint a special master to draw a new Alabama congressional map – jettisoning the partisan map that Alabama’s Republican supermajority in the Legislature passed in a July special session over the objections of Democrats. “Today’s ruling is a victory for Alabama voters,” Alabama’s Democratic Legislators wrote. “The federal district court’s decision to reject the “Livingston 3” map affirms the voting rights of all Alabama citizens.” “We expect that the new map drawn by the court-appointed cartographer will fairly and accurately represent Alabama while complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” the Legislators continued. “Although today is a victory, we must remain vigilant. The Alabama Attorney General and other state elected officials have blatantly and willfully declared that they plan to challenge this new map; and will not rest until Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is completely dismantled. That is why we will continue to fight to defend the freedom to vote, and we will work tirelessly to secure fair representation for all Alabama voters.” “No matter the final outcome, today and this entire redistricting battle is a poignant reminder of just how important it is for all eligible voters to exercise the freedom to vote,” the AHDC continued. “Your vote is your voice. While we hope that the court’s map will provide an opportunity for Alabama Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice, it will only be effective if voters show up to the polls. During the 2022 Alabama general election, only 38.5% of voters cast a ballot. Defending fair maps in court is only one half of the battle. The other half is increasing voter participation by removing unnecessary obstacles from the election process. As we continue this fight, the Alabama House Democratic Caucus is also striving to make voting easier and more accessible while maintaining the safety, security, and integrity of Alabama’s election process.” “Fair elections begin with fair maps – maps that help ensure that voters have the ability to elect the candidate of their choice,” the AHDC concluded. In June, the three-judge panel ordered the Legislature to prepare a new congressional redistricting map that complied with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and create two Black majority congressional districts “or something close to it.” Instead of complying with the court’s order, the Republicans just tweaked their 2021 redistricting map so that Alabama’s Second Congressional District increased from 30% Black voters to 39.9% Black voters. On Tuesday, the judges chastised the state for failing to follow the court’s orders. Speaker of the Alabama House Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville) released a statement defending the actions of the Legislature. “The legislature worked together to meet the court’s vague requirements, so today’s ruling is disappointing,” Speaker Ledbetter said on Twitter. “Above all, it’s frustrating that the court chooses to legislate when the Alabama Legislature knows our citizens, hometowns, and communities better than any federal judge.” The Alabama Attorney General’s office has announced plans to appeal the ruling and take the case to the Supreme Court. The Alabama House Democratic Caucus made up just 28 of the 105 seats in the Alabama House of Representatives during the last legislative regular session. There are presently three vacancies in the House: one Democratic and two Republican. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama will challenge decision in redistricting case
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office announced in a statement late on Tuesday that the state will appeal Tuesday’s ruling by the federal three-judge panel rejecting the Alabama Legislature’s latest congressional redistricting map. Marshall’s office said, “While we are disappointed in (Tuesday’s) decision, we strongly believe that the legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.’ In filed papers with the Court, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen disclosed an intent to appeal the three-judge panel decision. The Legislature passed a new congressional redistricting map in a July special session. In June, the state was ordered to create a map with two majority-minority districts or something close to it by the three-judge panel. The Republican supermajority of the Alabama Legislature ignored the instructions of the court order and instead just increased the percentage of Black Voters in Alabama’s Second Congressional District from 30% to 39.9% and called it an “opportunity district.” The three-judge panel wrote that that partisan new map still violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and ordered a court-appointed special master to draw Alabama’s new congressional district lines. “We are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” the Judges wrote in their order on Tuesday. The state disagrees and will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislators close to the redistricting told Alabama Today that appealing this case to the Supreme Court was always the plan and that they expected the three-judge panel would find against the state’s map. Marshall himself, in recent remarks to the Alabama Republican Party Executive Committee in Montgomery, expressed skepticism that the three-judge panel would find in favor of the state but that the state would appeal. The same three-judge panel ruled in 2022 that Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting map also violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state Legislature to draw a new map. Instead, the state defied the Court by refusing to draw a new map. The state appealed then to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially stayed the three-judge panel order of a new map and allowed the 2022 congressional elections to proceed under the 2021 map. The Supreme Court, however, eventually ruled in June in favor of the civil rights groups suing the state and upheld the three-judge panel’s 2022 preliminary ruling that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme ruled 5 to 4 that the 2021 congressional redistricting map likely does violate the Voting Rights Act and referred the case back to the three-judge panel. The majority decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by the three liberal justices. Brett Kavanaugh was the deciding vote. The state is staking its case on Kavanaugh reversing himself and instead finding in favor of the State of Alabama when the state makes its case before the Court for a second time. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to even hear this case. Also at issue is whether the 2024 congressional elections will use the July map drawn by the Legislature or the new map that the three-judge panel ordered on Tuesday for a special master to draw. The special master won’t be finished with that new map until September 25. The state has said it needs to have a map in place by October 1, as major party qualifying for the election will begin next month. If the Court agrees to hear the state’s appeal, it will take months for the legal process, and the major party primaries are set for March 5. At this point, no one in the State of Alabama knows with any certainty which congressional district they live in moving forward. The state contends it cannot draw a map with two majority-minority districts that is suitably compact and doesn’t divide communities of interest. The state has argued that dividing Mobile County or putting Mobile and Baldwin Counties (the two Alabama Gulf Coast counties) in separate congressional districts is unreasonable. They also say that the Wiregrass region of southeast Alabama should not be divided. The civil rights groups suing the state argue that these concerns are secondary to the Voting Rights Act. They demand that communities of color be allowed to pick their own congressional representation. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
West Alabama leaders voice their support for continuing the construction of a controversial West Alabama Highway
More than a dozen elected officials throughout western Alabama – from Mobile to Fayette – came together in Thomasville on Tuesday to voice their strong support for continuing construction of the West Alabama Highway. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey supports a plan to four-lane a highway through rural Alabama all the way from Mobile to Florence. Some state leaders and the media are widely criticizing that plan because prioritizing the four-lane highway through West Alabama means that other projects will likely have to be delayed. The West Alabama four-lane highway has been discussed for decades. It would foster economic opportunities, particularly in counties without a four-lane highway or interstate access. It would add a new north-south route in the state, possibly taking some traffic off Interstate 65. The groundbreaking for the project was held on November 12, 2021, and attended by Gov. Ivey and area officials. Building the controversial West Alabama Highway will cost the state an estimated $760 million. The West Alabama Highway will add lanes to U.S. 43 and State Route 69 to complete a four-lane corridor of roughly 80 miles. Supporters at Tuesday’s event agreed the West Alabama Highway will open the region to economic development, jobs, safer commutes, and greater access to medical care and other necessities. Sheldon Day is the Mayor of Thomasville. “If we prepare ourselves today and do the right thing by working hard to make sure this happens, we will lift up the state of Alabama, this part of Alabama, higher than it’s ever seen before,” Mayor Day said. “The goals achieved and the things that can be achieved will be exponential.” Sandy Stimpson is the Mayor of Mobile. Stimpson said the West Alabama Highway is important to Mobile, especially as the Port of Mobile is expanding. Completing construction of the West Alabama Highway offers a new option — other than congested Interstate 65 — for goods being transported north from the port. With the port expansion, “You can just visualize the increased commerce that we will have, and already we have traffic congestion on 65,” Stimpson said. “And, yes, there needs to be things done to improve 65. But it may the quickest and the least expensive thing to do is to fix 43 so that we have two routes coming out of Mobile for one of the biggest economic engines that we have for the entire state to be able to go north to connect to Tuscaloosa, I-22, on to Florence.” Rod Northam is the Mayor of Fayette. Mayor Northam attended the event and discussed the benefits of the four-lane highway connecting Mobile to Tuscaloosa and heading north toward his city and Florence. Another recently announced project – the West Central Alabama Highway – will connect Fayette to Interstate 22. Mayor Northam noted that because there is no four-lane highway through the western part of the state, many residents in north Alabama opt to travel through Mississippi to reach Alabama’s beaches. “That’s tax dollars we’ve lost because they’re going to stop and get food, they’re going to stop and get gas, and they’re going to come down another state and not come down a corridor that connects, hopefully one day, the Shoals to Mobile,” said Mayor Northam. Walt Maddox is the Mayor of Tuscaloosa. Maddox called the West Alabama Highway “one of those win-win-wins. It’s good for Tuscaloosa, it’s good for the Black Belt, and it’s good for the entire state of Alabama.” “So much of our commerce comes up from this region of the state, and what we want to do is export – especially on the automotive side – that back into Mobile,” Mayor Maddox said. “Not only automotive but coal as well, which is important to this region.” Anyone who has traveled up and down Interstate 65 on a Friday afternoon during the summer knows that the interstate is in excess of its capacity and would benefit from widening. Former President Donald Trump even made an issue of the situation when he recently visited Montgomery, promising Republicans that a second Trump administration would prioritize making I-65 at least six lanes from the Tennessee state line to Mobile. Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth has prioritized the I-65 widening. Everyone agrees that adding lanes to I-65 is something that the state should do. Gov. Ivey recently announced that I-65 would be widened between Alabaster and Calera in Shelby County at a cost of over $100 million. Where Ainsworth has come into disagreement with Ivey is that building the West Alabama Highway will take ALDOT dollars that could be used on I-65, and borrowing the money to build Ivey’s West Alabama project would limit future road project funding for the state. If somehow Donald Trump avoids prison time, wins the GOP nomination, defeats incumbent President Joe Biden, and tries to honor his promise on I-65, the state will have maxed out its borrowing capacity building the West Alabama Highway and won’t be able to put up matching dollars for an I-65 widening project. A similar situation exists with the long-delayed Corridor X in Jefferson County. Any resources ALDOT spends there means that there are fewer resources available for widening I-65. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Gov. Kay Ivey sends letter expressing concern over ‘inappropriate’ books in Alabama libraries
The growing controversy over the content in Alabama libraries was unforeseen by almost everyone but is an increasingly real feud between the librarians and certain conservative groups. On Friday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey sent a letter to Alabama Public Library Service Director Dr. Nancy Pack expressing the Governor’s concern that Alabama’s libraries have not been a suitably friendly environment for Alabama’s children and families. “I am writing to express concern—and to seek answers—about the environment our Alabama libraries are providing to families and children,” Ivey wrote. “Public libraries play a vital role in our communities. They facilitate research and learning. They provide recreation. And they promote literacy by fostering a love of reading that will improve our citizens’ lives and uplift our State’s communities. Regardless of background or income, Alabama libraries are or should be—a safe place for all individuals in a community. including families and children, to read, learn, and explore.” “Especially given libraries’ importance to society, I have grown increasingly concerned due to recent reports calling into question whether our own libraries here in Alabama are most effectively fulfilling this important mission,” the Governor continued. “The heart of the issue seems to be the exposure of children and youth to inappropriate, sexually suggestive materials without adequate means or parental supervision.” The Governor cited several books related to exploring one’s gender identity and gender transition being found in the children’s sections of several Alabama libraries targeting children as young as eight as well as books with gratuitous sexual content targeting 12- and 13-year-olds. “This list could go on, but the important point. as I understand it. is that each of these books has been made freely available in the very part of the library where children and youth are most likely to browse,” Ivey stated. “As several parents have eloquently put it, their concern is not about removing these books. The concern is about ensuring that these books are placed in an appropriate location. In other words, the parents are saying, if our children and youth are going to encounter these books at all, it should be because of a considered family decision, not the whims of a local library.” “Rather than supporting Alabama families, out-of-state library groups like the American Library Association appear to be making the situation worse,” Ivey states. “The ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights”—which the Alabama Public Library Service has adopted as its own—says that a person’s library use should not be abridged because of “age.” Not to be misunderstood, the ALA’s website regarding youth access to library resources clarifies that “like adults, children and teens have the right to find the information they choose,” so libraries must not “discriminate” based on “age.” Even more startling, the Library Bill of Rights further provides that all people, regardless of age, “possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use”—a statement that appears to directly contravene Alabama’s law giving parents access to their children’s library records.” “Considering the foregoing facts, it is not surprising that Alabama parents are raising concerns about both the content on display in some Alabama libraries as well as the general approach of Alabama libraries towards parental involvement,” said Ivey. “I share these concerns and believe that the responsible thing to do is seem more information that may be useful in considering whether reform is necessary—and if so, what reforms to make.” Ivey made a number of demands of Dr. Pack in the letter, including demanding “An itemized account of how much money the Library Service has paid to the American Library Association over the past five years.” The libraries could diffuse this situation and lessen the increasing amount of criticism they are receiving simply by removing the LGBTQ+ content targeting children and teens from the shelves, but they have resisted that to this point. They claim, however, that this is a free speech issue and are resisting the political pressure from certain conservative groups that have recently focused on exposing inappropriate books on library shelves. “When you’ve been in this business this long, you see what goes around comes around,” Pack said in June. “Censorship has been around for a long time. Sometimes it has been worse, sometimes, it has been less. It’s nothing we haven’t weathered before.” “A librarian’s role, in my opinion, is to provide accurate information, to curate what the community needs are, and to make sure they know what materials are needed in their community,” Pack said. “You have to tell the parents it is our role to have access to materials. It is their role to decide whether they want to come to the library and monitor what their children are looking at.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Steve Flowers: Alabama is in for a congressional shakeup
Being elected to Congress is like having a guaranteed job for as long as you want. They serve two-year terms, and the reelection rate is 96%. All you have to do is vote the party line and not commit murder, and you are there for life. The path to reelection to most political offices is to have money and name identification, and this is especially true in Congressional races. All seven of our congressmen are considered in safe seats. We have six Republicans and one lone Democrat in our Alabama delegation to the Potomac. The districts as currently drawn are designed for six Republicans and one Democrat. A three-judge federal panel made up of two Republican-appointed judges and one Democrat appointee judge made the decision over two years ago that Alabama should have a second Black Democratic seat. They hung their hat and robe on the fact that one Black Democratic seat is not sufficient in Alabama, given that one seat comprises only 14% of the black population and Alabama has a 27% Black population. Thus, Black Democrats should have two rather than one Democratic seat in the Heart of Dixie. This decision has been upheld by none other than the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, folks, it is about to happen. My prediction over a year ago was that the Courts or their appointed cartographer would draw a second minority district. I further continue with my prognosis that the Court will act very soon, probably within the next few weeks, to ignore the legislature’s partisan plan in favor of the Milligan/Plaintiffs Plan. The result will be the new Congressional lines for the next decade. The Milligan/Plaintiffs Plan is perfectly drawn and expertly designed to comply with the Court’s decree. This plan creates a second minority district centered around all of Montgomery, the Black Belt, and the Black voters in Mobile. The new second minority district will appropriately be Alabama District 2. The old Second District that Republican Barry Moore sits in will be dissolved. The Whites in the five Wiregrass counties will be sent to the Mobile/Baldwin Republican district held by Jerry Carl. Under the Milligan/Plaintiffs Plan, Congresswoman Terri Sewell’s district is beautifully drawn for her. It is essentially the same as her current district. It will be 55% Black. The new Second District will be 50% Black. The Republicans will contest this new district and may prevail. However, the odds favor a Black Democrat. My guess is when the dust settles in November 2024, Alabama’s Congressional makeup will be five Republicans and two Democrats. This change has been brewing for over a decade. Black voters have argued that having a Black population of 27% calls for two seats under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Finally, after the 2020 census, Black plaintiffs sought relief from our federal courts. It was clear that the growth in the Black population in the Montgomery area would allow for a congruent, clearly defined second minority district. When you include Montgomery with the 12 rural overwhelmingly Black and Black Belt counties and draw in most of the Black voters in Mobile, it becomes possible. The three-judge panel agreed and gave the state a two-year reprieve because the 2022 elections based on the 2020 census were already ongoing. You could tell from the original decision to stay the case due to the timing of the 2022 elections that the Supreme Court was interested in revisiting this Alabama scenario. They did, and they ruled and sent it back to the three Alabama judges to uphold. The three-judge panel is going to rule on the final district lines any day now. The lines that the Judges deliver to Alabama soon will favor a second minority district for our state. This Supreme Court case is far-reaching. It will also change the partisan makeup of other Southern states like Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina. The Supreme Court knew what they were doing. They knew they were using Alabama as a guinea pig and plowing new ground in the South under the Voting Rights Act. Our Alabama Congressional delegation is looking at a shakeup in 2024. However, it will not affect our power and influence in the U.S. House. Our three Republican powers in Congress, Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers, and Gary Palmer, will be unaffected, and our two Republican newcomers, Jerry Carl and Dale Strong, will have enhanced Republican districts. Terri Sewell will be entrenched as a Democratic leader in the House. See You next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. Steve served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Rep. Terri Sewell says redistricting decision is another victory for Black voters
On Tuesday, the federal three-judge Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges panel released a 196-page ruling tossing out Alabama’s partisan congressional redistricting map passed along partisan lines in a July special session of the Alabama Legislature. Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL07), who represents Alabama’s only majority-minority congressional district, released a statement following the federal court decision striking down the Alabama State Legislature’s 2023 Congressional Map and Appointing a Special Master to draw Alabama’s congressional districts. “Today’s decision is yet another victory for Black voters in Alabama and for the promise of fair representation,” Rep. Sewell said. “By appointing a special master to fairly redraw Alabama’s congressional map, the court has rejected the state legislature’s latest attempt to dilute the voices and voting power of African Americans all across our state.” “While we were outraged by the Alabama State Legislature’s open defiance of the Supreme Court’s original order to create two majority-minority districts, I am nonetheless grateful that a federal court has now intervened to protect the voices of Alabama’s Black voters,” Sewell concluded. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is indeed alive and enforceable!” The ruling means that a special master will draw up new congressional redistricting maps after both the 2021 and 2023 maps prepared by the Republican-dominated Alabama State Legislature have been set aside by the three-judge panel. Most legal observers expect that the state of Alabama will appeal this ruling. As of press time, there has been no comment from Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office. The Alabama Republican Party expressed their disappointment in the decision in a statement. “While we respect the Court, we are disappointed in its decision, and we trust that the State will ultimately prevail in this litigation,” the ALGOP said. The Special Master is expected to draw the state’s new Congressional Districts maps by September 25. Major party qualifying for the 2024 election begins in October. Congress members do not have to live in the district in which they run, but they are required to live in the state. The major party primaries will be held on March 5. Alabama is currently represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by six Republican White men and one Democratic Black woman – Sewell. The special master does not have to worry about the compactness of the districts, keeping communities of interest together, or avoiding placing two or more congressional incumbents in the same district. The state could still contest the special master’s map. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Georgia can resume enforcing ban on hormone replacement therapy for transgender youth, judge says
Georgia can resume enforcing a ban on hormone replacement therapy for transgender people under 18, a judge ruled Tuesday, putting her previous order blocking the ban on hold after a federal appeals court allowed Alabama to enforce a similar restriction. Attorneys for the state had asked Judge Sarah Geraghty to vacate the preliminary injunction in light of the Alabama decision. Geraghty did not go that far, but she also said keeping her injunction in place was not possible after last month’s ruling on Alabama’s law by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Georgia. She instead issued a stay, or hold, on her injunction in anticipation of a possible rehearing of the Alabama case before a larger panel of the court’s judges. A spokesperson for the Georgia attorney general’s office, Kara Richardson, said in a statement that the office was pleased with the ruling and “will continue fighting to protect the health and well-being of Georgia’s children.” Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Georgia case said they were disappointed “primarily for the families who are unable to get the care they need in Georgia or make medical decisions based on the best interest of their children” and stressed that their legal fight was not over. The 11th Circuit panel’s ruling last month said Alabama can implement a ban on the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender children. It came a day after Geraghty issued her preliminary injunction. The Georgia law, Senate Bill 140, allows doctors to prescribe puberty-blocking medications, and it allows minors who are already receiving hormone therapy to continue. But it bans any new patients under 18 from starting hormone therapy. It also bans most gender-affirming surgeries for transgender people under 18. It took effect July 1. Geraghty granted a preliminary injunction blocking it on August 20. The injunction was sought by several transgender children, parents, and a community organization in a lawsuit challenging the ban. In her August decision, Geraghty said the transgender children who sought the injunction faced “imminent risks” from the ban, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. She said those risks outweighed any harm to the state from an injunction. The 11th Circuit judges who ruled on Alabama’s law said states have “a compelling interest in protecting children from drugs, particularly those for which there is uncertainty regarding benefits, recent surges in use, and irreversible effects.” Doctors typically guide children toward therapy or voice coaching long before medical intervention. At that point, puberty blockers and other hormone treatments are far more common than surgery. They have been available in the U.S. for more than a decade and are standard treatments backed by major doctors’ organizations, including the American Medical Association. At least 22 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Most of those states have been sued. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
A Georgia trial arguing redistricting harmed Black voters could decide control of a U.S. House seat
Democrats could gain a seat in the U.S. House and multiple seats in Georgia’s Legislature, if a judge rules Republicans drew maps illegally weakening Black voters’ power. The trial beginning Tuesday is part of a wave of litigation progressing after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year stood behind its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting Alabama’s challenge to the law. The Voting Rights Act says voting district lines can’t result in discriminatory effects against minority voters, who must be allowed a chance to elect candidates of their choosing. Court cases challenging district lines drawn after the 2020 Census could shape 2024 congressional elections in states beyond Alabama and Georgia, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas. Taken as a whole, those cases could affect the narrow hold Republicans have on the U.S. House. In Georgia, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones is hearing what is expected to be a two-week case without a jury. If he rules against the state, he is likely to order Georgia’s Republican-controlled General Assembly to redraw districts to comply with the law. The trial yokes together three different cases, meaning Jones could rule for the challengers in some instances and not others. Jones already ruled in March 2022 that some parts of Georgia’s redistricting plans probably violate federal law. He allowed the new congressional and state legislative maps to be used for 2022’s elections, finding changes close to elections would have been too disruptive. Charles Bullock, a University of Georgia political scientist who studies redistricting, said he expects Jones to side with the plaintiffs. “He found the plaintiffs had proven the elements of a Section 2 violation at that point,” Bullock said of the earlier ruling. The plaintiffs challenging the districts argue there is room to draw another Black-majority congressional seat on the west side of metro Atlanta, as well as three more majority-Black state Senate districts and five additional majority-Black state house districts in various parts of the state. They point to Georgia’s addition of a half million Black residents from 2010 to 2020, nearly half of all population growth. “Despite these striking demographic changes, the enacted congressional plan fails to reflect the growth in Georgia’s Black population,” the plaintiffs challenging Georgia’s congressional map wrote in a summary of their case filed with the court. The state, though, argues the plaintiffs haven’t proved voters act the way they do because of race, arguing partisanship is a stronger motivator. Defense attorneys, for example, point to the role of partisanship in the original election of Democratic U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath in 2018. McBath, who is Black, first won office in a district with a small Black population. Lawmakers then redrew lines to make the district significantly more Republican, leading McBath to jump to and win reelection in a different district. The state also argues plaintiffs would rely so much on race to draw districts that it would be illegal. “That’s a defense you can offer is what the plaintiffs want would require putting considerations of race above everything else,” Bullock said. But Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, said Georgia’s claims that lawmakers didn’t consider race in drawing lines, only partisanship, should lead to questions about whether they considered if the lines discriminated. “It sounds like, so far, the state is saying, ‘We don’t talk about race at all.’ But then, is there a story to be told about?” Crayton said. “What does it mean to have a significant portion of your state that has not been able to access power?” Republicans held an 8-6 majority in Georgia’s U.S. House delegation in 2020, but majority-GOP state lawmakers redrew lines to eliminate one of those Democratic seats, boosting their majority to 9-5. If the plaintiffs win, the balance could revert to 8-6 Republicans. However, lawmakers also could try to convert McBath’s current seat into a majority Black seat. The GOP currently holds a 102-78 majority in the state House and a 33-23 majority in the state Senate. While a plaintiff’s victory is unlikely to flip control in either chamber, additional Black-majority districts in the Senate and House could elect Democrats who would narrow Republican margins. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
