U.S. Supreme Court denies bid by Alabama lawmakers in redistricting fight
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t intervene in the fight over Alabama’s congressional maps. On Tuesday, the court denied a bid by state lawmakers for another look at the fight about the state having a second Black majority congressional district. Several groups sued to overturn the state’s 2021 congressional maps, which had one of seven districts majority Black. It was a last-ditch effort by the state to keep maps drawn during July’s special session and rejected by a three-judge federal panel earlier this month. The U.S. District Court will pick between three congressional maps drawn by a court-appointed special master and a cartographer. All three will create Black-majority districts and be a likely pickup for Democrats. “This is a victory for all Americans, particularly voters of color, who have fought tirelessly for equal representation as citizens of this nation,” former Attorney General Eric Holder said in a release. “Even with this court’s landmark decision to uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Alabama Republicans have defied court orders at every turn by refusing to enact a map that gives Black Alabamians the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in two districts. “These shameful, odious efforts to diminish the rightful voting power of Black Alabamians have finally been defeated. As a result, we will see more representative maps in places that were once thought to be unreachable in the fight for fairness: Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. Justice has prevailed.” On June 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Allen v. Milligan that said Alabama’s previously-drawn map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered new maps that create an “opportunity district” for minority voters to cast ballots for the candidates of their choice. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Federal court rejects Alabama’s request for a pause on congressional map ruling
On Monday, the State of Alabama suffered another major setback in its ongoing congressional redistricting map saga when the federal three-judge panel that is hearing Alabama’s congressional redistricting case denied the state’s request that the ruling be paused to give the state time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court – again. The federal three-judge panel wrote in their ruling on Monday, “It is exceptionally unusual for a litigant who has presented his arguments to the Supreme Court once already — and lost — to assert that he is now ‘overwhelmingly likely’ to prevail on those same arguments in that Court in this case.” The three-judge panel ruled that the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it passed a congressional redistricting plan in 2021 that created six majority-white and just one majority-Black Congressional District. The court ordered the state to suspend the 2022 congressional elections and submit a compliant map. The state refused and instead appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court upheld the three-judge panel’s order allowing the 2022 election to proceed with the 2021 maps. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Allen v. Milligan that the three-judge panel was right in their 2022 preliminary ruling and remanded the case back to them in a controversial 5 to 4 ruling against the state of Alabama. After the state’s rebuke by the Supreme Court, the three-judge panel ordered the state to prepare a map with two majority-minority districts “or something close to it.” The Alabama State Legislature met in a July special session. Instead of complying with the court order, the Republican-dominated Legislature passed a new map that increased the Second Congressional District from 30% Black voting age population to 39.9%. The Republicans in the Senate claimed that their ‘Livingston 3’ map kept communities of interest together and was as compact as possible. They argued that this was as close to fulfilling the court’s order. Never mind that the Republican-dominated House of Representatives had passed a map by Representative Chris Pringle (R-Mobile) with a 43.3% Black 2nd District. When the Pringle plan arrived in the Senate, State Senator Steve Livingston (R-Scottsboro) simply substituted it for his Livingston 3 map. The state adopted the Livingston 3 map. Livingston and Pringle are the joint co-chairs of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Reapportionment. The Legislature’s Democrats and the civil rights groups suing the state asked the three-judge panel to reject the partisan Livingston 3 map. The three-judge panel complied, ruling that it (like the 2021 redistricting map) violated the Voting Rights Act. The court has appointed a special master to draw Alabama’s new congressional districts map. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen (R), on the advice of Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Monday’s setback by the three-judge panel means that the court-appointed special master will continue redrawing the state’s seven congressional districts to create that second majority Black District. That map, which nobody has seen yet, will likely be the map the state will use to vote next year. The special master is supposed to be finished with his new map by September 25. The state is still asking the Supreme Court to intervene, but there is no guarantee that the Court will even hear this case. If it does agree to listen to the case, it is unknown if the Justices will allow the 2024 election to proceed with the Legislature’s Livingston 3 map or if they will allow the election to proceed with the new special master map. Democrats hope to use the Allen v. Milligan ruling to force states to create new majority-minority districts. The major party primaries are on March 5. The Alabama Democratic Party told Alabama Today Monday that candidate qualifying for Democrats will open on September 29. The Alabama Republican Party announced during the day that GOP candidate qualifying will not begin until October 16. Both parties are closing qualifying on November 10. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Plaintiffs to challenge Alabama’s new congressional redistricting map
The plaintiffs in Allen v. Milligan filed a formal objection on July 28 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama regarding the state’s revised congressional district boundaries. The plaintiffs requested that the court prohibit the state from using the new boundaries and appoint a special master to draw a new congressional map that the state would use for the remainder of the decade. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. SCOTUS’ decision affirmed the Northern District’s earlier decision, and SCOTUS remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Alabama enacted revised congressional district boundaries on July 21 after the legislature approved them and Gov. Kay Ivey signed the redrawn maps into law. The Senate approved the new boundaries 24-6, and the state House passed them 76-26. The Alabama Reflector’s Alander Rocha and Jemma Stephenson wrote that the congressional map the state enacted in 2023 “would lower the percentage of Alabama’s current majority-Black district and create a district in southeast Alabama that would be nearly 40% Black.” The plaintiffs’ objection to the newly enacted boundaries argued, “Alabama’s new congressional map ignores this Court’s preliminary injunction order and instead perpetuates the Voting Rights Act violation that was the very reason that the Legislature redrew the map. The new map (known as SB 5) fails to address this Court’s ruling that the 2021 congressional map likely violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).” After the state enacted new congressional boundaries in July, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement that said in part: “The Legislature’s new plan fully and fairly applies traditional principles in a way that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Contrary to mainstream media talking points, the Supreme Court did not hold that Alabama must draw two majority-minority districts. Instead, the Court made clear that the VRA never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, issued a statement that said in part: “Today, the State of Alabama has shamelessly chosen to ignore the Supreme Court. The map advanced by the state legislature includes only one majority-minority district and a second district where Black voters make up only 39.9 percent of the voting-age population. “This map does not comply with the Supreme Court’s order and is an insult to Black voters across our state. I fully expect that it will be rejected by the courts.” Now that the plaintiffs have objected to the newly adopted boundaries, the state has until Aug. 4 to file a response. If the federal district court decides to conduct hearings in the case, those have been tentatively scheduled to start on Aug. 14. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
