Taxpayer rebates coming in 30 days
On Wednesday, Governor Kay Ivey announced that Alabama taxpayers will receive their one-time tax rebates beginning on December 1. Ivey first announced her plan to utilize Alabama’s historic budget surplus to provide a tax rebate to working Alabama families during her 2023 State of the State Address. “This is the people’s money, and it’s only right, while acknowledging we are recording revenues far exceeding normal and sustainable levels, we give a fair share of this money directly back to the people of Alabama,” Gov. Ivey said. The Alabama Department of Revenue (ALDOR) will issue the rebates beginning December 1, 2023. “From the very beginning, it has been my belief that it is the responsibility of government to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars while actively looking for ways to support citizens through tough times,” said Gov. Ivey. “Our country is in the midst of tough times, and Alabama families from all walks of life are unfortunately seeing that their paychecks aren’t going as far as they once did. Thanks to our unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility, one-time tax rebates will be with our hard-working Alabamians in time for the holidays.” To qualify for the rebates, taxpayers must have filed a 2021 Individual Income Tax return, which ALDOR received on or before October 17, 2022. Non-residents, estates or trusts, or anyone who was claimed as a dependent during the 2021 tax year do not qualify. State Senator Greg Reed (R-Jasper) is the Senate President Pro Tempore. “The resilience of hardworking Alabamians and conservative fiscal policies passed by the Legislature have made our state economy strong,” said President Pro Tem. Reed. “With a strong state economy built on investment in Alabama’s future, we are equipped to be in a healthy economic position as a state for years to come. Because we are in such a strong economic position as a state, it is our job as responsible stewards of taxpayer money to return money to the people of Alabama through this rebate during the holiday season.” The amount of each rebate is based on the qualified taxpayer’s filing status: Single and married people who file separately can expect a $150 one-time rebate. Married couples who file jointly can expect to receive $300. “Inflation has hit our state hard in recent years,” said Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro). “These rebates will return some dollars back to the taxpayers and provide relief to help ease that inflationary burden.” Qualified taxpayers can expect to receive their rebate based on how they received their 2021 tax year refund, by direct deposit or paper check. For qualified taxpayers who did not receive a 2021 tax year refund, the rebate can be expected by paper check. Rep. Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville) is the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives. “In recent years, we’ve witnessed federal spending spiraling out of control, resulting in some of the highest inflation rates in decades,” said Speaker Ledbetter. “This has had a tangible impact on families in our state. The Alabama House worked hand-in-glove with the governor to help ease that burden.” “The Alabama Legislature worked hard with the governor this year to put money back in people’s pockets,” said House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (R-Huntsville). These tax rebates are just in time for the holidays and can help make the season a little brighter for Alabama families.” The rebates will not be taxable for Alabama income tax purposes. Ivey had originally wanted a more significant rebate. The version of the budget that passed out of the Senate included no rebate but did include tax cuts. The Alabama House of Representatives restored the rebate, and the 2024 budget that went into effect on October 1 includes tax rebates and tax cuts. For many families, this rebate could pay for their Christmas. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Steve Flowers: It’s Official – Alabama will have new Congressional Districts
It’s official and final. Alabama will elect our seven-member congressional delegation under new lines next year. The federal court has spoken. The special master drawing the lines has acted, and the final omnipotent power, the U.S. Supreme Court, has concurred and confirmed the decision. It is over. The result that the plaintiffs desired has been decreed by the courts. There will be a new second majority Black Congressional district. This accomplishment has been sought for decades. Now the question becomes, can the Democrats succeed in electing a Black Democrat to this new opportunity district? It is not a slam dunk. The new district is 50% Black and 50% White. It favors a Montgomery candidate. The bulk of the population and the geographic center of the new district is Montgomery County. Montgomerians are like the rest of the state. They adhere to the well-known predilection known as “friends and neighbors” politics. That means they prefer to vote for someone from their neck of the woods, especially their county. My early prediction is that Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed will be the Democratic nominee and the favorite to win the new seat. The special master that drew the new lines attached an index to his maps that revealed that if there were a congressional race within this new district that this district would have voted for the Democrat in 15 out of 17 of the last 17 elections. Therefore, the court’s desire to make a second minority Democratic district where a Democrat has a good opportunity to win has been accomplished. The entire basis of this high-profile federal case has been centered around the fact that Alabama has one Black Democratic Congressperson, Terri Sewell, and six White Republicans. One Black Democrat constitutes 14% of the state’s population. The plaintiff’s argument is that the state’s Black population is 27%. Therefore, there should be two Black Democratic congressional seats in the Heart of Dixie. The courts bought that argument and hung their hat on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and having one seat rather than two violates and dilutes Black voters in Alabama’s voting rights. The question now becomes, what are the down-home political implications and results of these court-mandated new congressional lines? All of you who live in middle and north Alabama, which is most of you, are unaffected. The majority of the people in Alabama who live in Birmingham north are not affected. In fact, everyone north of Montgomery is unaffected. All of the commotion and redrawing has occurred in Montgomery, the Black Belt, the Wiregrass, and Mobile. Our three powerful Republican congressmen are left with basically their same districts. Republicans Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers, and Gary Palmer, who are our centers of power in the House, have their same, if not enhanced, GOP districts. Huntsville’s freshman congressman, Dale Strong’s district is unchanged. Congresswoman Terri Sewell’s Democratic district has been favored in the drawings. She has a perfectly drawn district that pretty much mirrors her current Birmingham-based seat. She will probably be spared a Republican challenge. However, State Senator Bobby Singleton, who hails from the Black Belt, may challenge her in a Democratic primary out of spite. He wanted a district that favored him but lost to Sewell in the legislative battles over the drawing of the new Black district. The real rubber meets the road within the Republican ranks in the Wiregrass, and Mobile and Baldwin counties. The five Wiregrass counties of Covington, Dale, Geneva, Houston, and Coffee are sent to Baldwin and Mobile. Therefore, new Congressmen Jerry Carl from Mobile and Barry Moore from Enterprise/Coffee are in the same district. Moore is the odd man out in this dilemma. The majority of votes in this new district are in Baldwin and Mobile counties. Carl will be the prohibitive favorite against Moore or any other Republican. It will be a very conservative Republican district. Therefore, six of our seven seats will be in safe reelection journeys for our incumbent congressmen. Jerry Carl in the first, Mike Rogers in the third, Robert Aderholt in the fourth, Dale Strong in the fifth, Gary Palmer in the sixth, and Terri Sewell in the seventh are very safe bets for reelection in 2024. Therefore, all of the turmoil and court intervention only affects one area of the state. All the brouhaha and action will be in the newly drawn second district. It is Montgomery Democratic Mayor Steven Reed’s race to lose. He will be the favorite to win and change Alabama’s delegation in Washington from six Republicans and one Democrat to five Republicans and two Democrats. However, I would handicap that race as a 50/50 toss-up. There will be a lot of Republican dollars from Washington showered upon the Republican nominee. It will be interesting. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Mid-Alabama Republican Club discusses congressional redistricting issue
On Saturday, attorney Bert Jordan briefed the influential Mid-Alabama Republican Club (MARC) on the pending federal litigation over Alabama’s disputed congressional redistricting. On Monday morning, the State of Alabama will defend a congressional redistricting plan passed by the Alabama Legislature in July’s second 2023 special session. Plaintiffs have challenged that plan as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hoover City Councilman John Lyda is the President of MARC. “Burt Jordan has practiced law here for 43 years,” Lyda said. “His law firm, Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt, represents the City of Hoover, and I am very grateful for that.” Lyda said Jordan represented Perry Hooper Sr. in his disputed Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court race in 1992. He has been counsel for the Alabama Republican party. He also served as County chairman from 1995 to 1999. Jordan criticized the media coverage, particularly that of al.com in this case, as inaccurate. “I know al.com could do a better job,” he stated. “In early 2022, a U.S. District Court consisting of three judges issued an injunction because the 2021 Congressional redistricting likely violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Jordan said. “Section 5 was struck down in 2012 in a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts. John Roberts has received a lot of criticism for that decision.” Jordan explained that in 1982, the City of Mobile’s city council districts were upheld by the Supreme Court. The city had three council districts that were voted on city-wide, but no Black representative had been elected to the council, even though the city was 33% Black. The Supreme Court found that the Mobile redistricting did not violate Section 2 because there was no intent to prevent a Black person from being elected. It just hadn’t happened. Following the Mobile decision, Section 2 of the VRA was rewritten by Congress from showing intent to a results outcome. Jordan explained 27% of Alabamians are Black. The plaintiffs argue that based on the results test, then two out of the seven congressional districts should be majority Black. “Nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population,” Jordan stated. Jordan said that a key Supreme Court decision here was Thornburg v Gingles. “The Gingles factors: First, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district. Second, the minority group must show that it is politically cohesive. Third, the minority must demonstrate that the White majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it……..to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. Finally, a plaintiff who demonstrates the three preconditions must also show, under the “totality for the circumstances,” that the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters.” Jordan said that the Court ruled that the 2021 Alabama congressional redistricting was “likely a violation of section 2 of the voting rights act. That is why we are where we are today.” Jordan explained that there are three separate lawsuits challenging the 2021 congressional redistricting that have all been wrapped together into one suit. Those plaintiffs are Milligan from Montgomery, Castor from Mobile, and state Senator Bobby Singleton from Hale County. “They say that the Legislature’s remedial plan does not comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Jordan said. “It comes down to the racial composition of (Congressional) District 2. The complaint of the plaintiffs is that (the remedial congressional redistricting map passed by the Legislature in July) is not going to remedy the problem.” The Legislature increased the number of Black voters in CD2 to almost 40%. Jordan said that Milligan and the other plaintiffs will argue that “the Legislature did not produce two majority Black Districts”; thus, that violates the results test of Section 2 of the VRA. “The way the state is defending this is important,” Jordan said. “The state is defending this on the grounds that it united the Black Belt and is preserving communities of interest while minimizing the number of county splits. The counterpoint is this, as seen from Terri Sewell, is that Alabama has defied the Supreme Court.” “The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2021 redistricting likely violated Section 2,” Jordan said. “There has never been a final ruling. The state is arguing that there has never been a final judgment, only a preliminary ruling, so the burden of proof is still on Milligan, Castor, and Singleton.” “We don’t know how that will play out exactly,” in the hearing on Monday, Jordan said. “There will be a lot of legal discussion between the judges and the attorneys.” Jordan said that the VRA had been misused at times in the past for gerrymandering. “One of the ways that it was misused was in drawing bizarrely shaped districts such as North Carolina District 12 (in 1990),” Jordan said. That redistricting snaked through multiple counties in North Carolina, connecting communities of color into a majority Black district. One consequence is that it made it easier for Republicans to win the neighboring districts. The Supreme Court rejected the gerrymandered District 12, Jordan explained. Jordan said that that decision was then used as a precedent in a 1990s case that he and Ferris Stephens brought challenging what was then Alabama state board of education district 4, where Jefferson County was in a school district with just the Black neighborhood of Tuscaloosa connected by a narrow lasso. The Court overturned the school board redistricting because it violated the North Carolina District 12 decision. Jordan said that Singleton has presented a map to the Court where Jefferson County is kept as a whole but is connected with Bibb to Hale and Perry Counties in the Blackbelt. Jordan said that this is dilution and thus would not pass legal scrutiny. Jordan said that the Court has declined to eliminate partisan gerrymandering. “The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that it couldn’t resolve partisan gerrymandering because it can’t make the decision on what is too much and what is fair,” Jordan said. “There is a lot of elite thinking that partisanship is distasteful. It may be, but it may be the best thing that
Redistricting plan goes to a conference committee
On Friday, the Alabama House of Representatives passed a Republican congressional redistricting plan that it hopes will comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Alabama Senate voted 30 to 0 to non-concur with the House plan. The redistricting plan has been referred to a conference committee to produce a compromise version that is acceptable to both Houses of the Legislature. For redistricting to pass out of the Legislature, the six-member conference committee has to reach a compromise. Then both Houses of the Legislature must vote to concur with the findings of the conference committee. Senate Bill 5 is sponsored by State Senator Steve Livingston (R-Scottsboro). The bill was carried in the House of Representatives by State Representative Chris Pringle (R-Mobile). Both Livingston and Pringle have introduced competing versions of the redistricting bill. The version of the bill that passed in the House is the Pringle version, the community of interest plan. Pringle’s plan would redraw Alabama’s Second Congressional District, currently represented by Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02), to increase the Black voting age population in CD2 from 30% of the population to over 42%. Senate Democrats have introduced multiple plans that would produce two majority-minority districts. Livingston’s competing plan passed out of the Senate on Wednesday. Pringle says that his plan’s CD2 would meet the Supreme Court’s ruling that the state provides an opportunity for Blacks to pick a candidate of their choice. Democrats disagree. “You are giving me an opportunity to lose,” said Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro). “There ain’t no opportunity there for Blacks or Democrats in that district,” said Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D-Birmingham). Democrats maintain that it is necessary for there to be two majority-minority congressional districts for Black voters to have an opportunity to choose their own representation. They also maintain that that is what the court intended. Sen. Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) said, “I contend that for African Americans to choose the candidate of their choice that we have to have a majority of African-Americans.” “It is irresponsible for the legislature to do what it is doing,” Coleman said. “The court ordered two districts that have 50% African Americans.” “The three-judge panel said that a proper remedy could consist of two majority-minority districts or quite close to it,” said Rep. Artis “A.J.” McCampbell (D-Livingston). The House of Representatives passed SB5 76 to 26. The Senate, in their own debate on redistricting, then voted 30 to 0 to concur with the House version of SB5 and go to a conference committee. Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Reed (R-Jasper) appointed Sens. Livingston, Smitherman, and Clay Scofield (R-Guntersville) to the conference committee. Speaker of the House Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Rainsville) appointed Pringle, Chris England (D-Tuscaloosa), and Chris Sells (R-Greenville) to the conference committee. Both Houses of the Legislature will return on Friday afternoon, presumably to vote on the conference committee report. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Legislature to finish redistricting today
On Friday, both Houses of the Alabama Legislature will meet on redistricting. The federal appeals court in Atlanta has set Friday, July 21, as the deadline for the state to submit a new congressional redistricting for the court to consider in the state’s ongoing Voting Rights Act case concerning congressional redistricting. There are a lot of disagreements in the Legislature on what plan the legislators should pass. Legislative Democrats, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state, and civil rights groups believe that to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the state should pass a plan with two majority-minority districts. This would almost certainly mean a pickup of one House of Representatives seat for Democrats in the U.S. Congress as Alabamians overwhelmingly vote along racial lines, with over 90% of Black Alabamians preferring Democrats and over 80% of White Alabamians preferring Republicans in recent elections. Alabama’s Legislative Republicans have rejected calls by Democrats to turn Alabama’s Second Congressional District into a majority-minority district. Congressional District 2 is currently represented by Congressman Barry Moore (R-Enterprise) – who served two terms in the Alabama House of Representatives from 2010 to 2018. Moore is a Republican, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, and an ardent Donald Trump supporter. Currently, 30% of the voters of CD2 are Black. State Senator Rodger Smitherman (D-Birmingham) has introduced a plan that would turn Congressional District 2 into a majority-minority district with over 50% of the voters in the district being Black. Republicans rejected that map as well as others introduced by Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) and other Democrats. Republicans maintain that the court has not ruled on Milligan v. Allen that the state is in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats look at the same U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the recent order by a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and say that the court did not provide the state with enough guidance to know what an “opportunity district” means. “That could be 42% (Black voters), that could be 38%, we just don’t know,” Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Reed (R-Jasper) told reporters. House Republicans have passed a plan by State Representative Chris Pringle (R-Mobile) they title the community of interest plan where Congressional District 2 is over 42% Black. Pringle maintains that that is close enough racially so that it is winnable by either party. Senate Republicans have passed a competing plan by State Sen. Steve Livingston (R-Scottsboro). The Livingston plan would only raise the Black voting age population of CD2 from 30% Black to 38% Black. Livingston said his plan kept communities of interest together and is the most compact while still providing an opportunity district for Black voters in Congressional District 2. More radical elements in the Legislature had called for turning Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District into an opportunity district that would be potentially winnable by Republicans. Congressional District 7 is represented by Terri Sewell – the only Democrat and the only Black representative in the congressional delegation. Both Pringle and Livingston, while deeply divided on the merits of their respective plans, did not go that far, and Congressional District 7 remains majority Black. Livingston said that his plan kept the Wiregrass whole and in the Second Congressional District, and it keeps the Gulf Coast and Mobile County whole. The House passed Pringle’s plan on Wednesday, but when he brought his bill to the Senate, Livingston motioned to substitute the Pringle plan for the Livingston plan. The Committee passed that motion. Pringle then stormed out of the room without continuing to present his bill. His bill, now the Livingston Bill, was passed by the Committee along party lines, with Democrats voting against it and Republicans voting for it. The one exception was State Senator Andrew Jones (D-Centre). His primary disagreement with the Livingston plan is that a small portion of northwest Etowah County would be in Congressional District 4, while 90% of Etowah County would switch to Congressional District 3. Jones told reporters he did not care whether Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL03) or Robert Aderholt (R-AL04) represented Etowah County. “My issue is that historically Etowah County has not been divided,” Jones, who represents Etowah and Cherokee Counties, said. Smitherman told reporters that he and Sen. Singleton had brought their own federal lawsuit and joined Milligan and the other plaintiffs. Smitherman said that it is his understanding that the plaintiffs will be given the opportunity to tell the court whether the plan passed by the Legislature satisfies their concerns or not. “Right now, I can’t support either (Republican) plan,” Smitherman said. Smitherman has demanded that the Apportionment Committee prepare a report on the plans showing the likelihood of a Democrat or a Republican winning each of these. “They can get that, or they already know it and don’t want to release it,” Smitherman said, Since the GOP is wildly divided on which plan they will advance to federal court, there is uncertainty about what the Legislature will pass on Friday. “Obviously, there will be negotiations,” Reed said. A compromise plan can be substituted on the floor of either House. Failing that, any difference between the House and Senate plans would be settled by a conference committee. If that happens, then under the circumstances, both Houses will recess until the conference committee returns with a conference committee plan to vote on. If the state and the plaintiffs cannot agree on a redistricting plan that is acceptable to both sides, a trial will likely be held in the eleventh circuit. Whatever is ultimately decided by the federal appeals court in Atlanta will likely be appealed by whichever party is dissatisfied with the outcome meaning that the Milligan case could go back to the Supreme Court, where Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears to be the swing vote. There is even a possibility that this case may not be resolved until after the 2024 elections. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama lawmakers are divided on eve of major redistricting deadline impacting Black voters
On the eve of a court deadline, Alabama lawmakers are still divided Thursday over the map designating new congressional districts and sparred over what constitutes an “opportunity” district that the state was ordered to create for Black voters. Republican-controlled committees in the House of Representatives and Senate continue to advance separate plans that increase the number of Black voters in the state’s 2nd congressional district but fail to establish the second majority-Black district, as sought by plaintiffs who won the Supreme Court case last month. Under the state Senate plan, the number of Black voters in the 2nd congressional district would increase from about 30% to 38%; under the House plan, it would increase to 42%. “We believe it does meet the Voting Rights (Act) standard because we followed all the guidelines. As an opportunity district, nobody knows what the definition of opportunity is. They didn’t give us (a definition),” Sen. Steve Livingston said. The Republican senator from Scottsboro said the chamber settled on 38% of the population of Black voters as adequate to fulfill the court’s directive. “So I’ve got an opportunity to lose,” said Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, a Democrat from Greensboro. Black lawmakers argued those numbers would make it impossible for a Black candidate to win in that district, and do not comply with the court directive to create a second majority-Black district “or something quite close to it.” “There ain’t no way that in that district — that we’re dealing with here in two — that an African-American got a chance to get elected. Ain’t no way whatsoever,” said Democratic Sen. Rodger Smitherman of Birmingham. State lawmakers face a Friday deadline to adopt new lines after the U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a three-judge panel’s finding that the current state map — with one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is 27% Black — likely violates the federal Voting Rights Act. State Republicans, who have been reluctant to create a Democratic-leaning district, are engaging in a high-stakes wager that the panel will accept their proposal, arguing that the compact scale of the districts satisfies redistricting principles, or that the state will prevail in a second round of appeals. The panel that issued a preliminary injunction blocking use of the existing map said in 2022 that Alabama should have “either an additional majority-Black congressional district or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.” The judges added that any map should include two districts where “Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” The meaning of the terms “quite close” and “opportunity” has dominated much of the legislative debate. “We’ve got information that’s come from the court. We’ve had information come from the justices, but much of this is speculative as to what they meant,” Senate President Pro Tem Greg Reed, the Republican leader of the Senate, told reporters Thursday. Reed said lawmakers are working toward a compromise between the state House and Senate plans, and that the lawmakers will “absolutely” meet the Friday deadline. Once a new GOP map is approved, the fight will shift quickly back to the courts. A Democratic state senator speculated that Alabama Republicans are seeking another Voting Rights Act challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court. “I think the (Alabama) attorney general is setting up a war with Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act) so once they get back, they can have a real shot at gutting Section 2. That’s just my gut,” Singleton said. Plaintiffs who won the Supreme Court case have said they will challenge either proposal if enacted. Scott Douglas, executive director of Greater Birmingham Ministries and a plaintiff in the case, said lawmakers have “apparently learned nothing from their loss at the Supreme Court. The Legislature has put forward yet another map that dilutes the electoral power of Black Alabamians.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Nathaniel Ledbetter announces appointments to the Reapportionment Committee
On Tuesday, Speaker of the House Nathaniel Ledbetter announced that he had appointed a number of House members to serve on the Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment. The House members appointed are: Cynthia Almond (R-Tuscaloosa) Barbara Boyd (D-Anniston) Jim Carns (R-Birmingham) Steve Clouse (R-Ozark) Corley Ellis (R-Columbiana) Chris England (D-Tuscaloosa) Laura Hall (D-Huntsville) Sam Jones (D-Mobile) Joe Lovvorn (R-Auburn) Chris Pringle (R-Mobile) Rex Reynolds (R-Huntsville). Since this is a joint committee, it is also made up of members of the Senate. The appointment of 11 members from the House would indicate an expansion of the committee. According to the committee website, the joint committee has just six members: Sens. Steve Livingston, Dan Roberts, and Bobby Singleton, and Reps. Kyle South, Laura Hall, and Chris Pringle. South is leaving the Legislature at the end of the month to accept a position as President and CEO of the West Alabama Chamber of Commerce. Presumably, the Senate will now appoint another eight joint committee members. The Joint Committee on Reapportionment normally redistricts the congressional districts, the state board of education districts, and legislative districts every ten years following the decennial census. In 2022 a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting as being in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this month found that the lower court was correct in its interpretation and has restored the lower court’s ruling that the state is in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The three-judge panel has given the Legislature until the middle of next month to submit a new congressional redistricting of the state to the federal court. The three-judge panel has ordered the Legislature to submit a new map where there are two majority-minority districts or something as close to that as possible. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey is expected to call a special session no later than July 17 to attempt to comply with the court order. If the Legislature cannot reach an agreement on a redistricting plan by July 21 or the Court does not like the State’s plan, then the three-judge panel may appoint a special master who will draw the districts for the state. Republicans currently control six of Alabama’s congressional seats, while Democrats control only the Seventh Congressional District. None of the seven congressional races were competitive in the general election last year. The redistricting could make two of those districts winnable for Alabama Democrats. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Legislature passes legislation making it a crime to chemically endanger a first responder
On Tuesday, the Alabama Senate sent legislation to Gov. Kay Ivey to make it a felony if someone chemically endangers a first responder. Sponsors say that this has become necessary due to the fentanyl crisis. Fentanyl is very potent and can be absorbed through the skin. A police officer or paramedic who comes into contact with even tiny quantities of fentanyl while interacting with a person can become extremely sick. The legislation passed the Senate on Tuesday. It had already passed the House of Representatives. House Bill 230 (HB230) is sponsored by State Representative Matt Simpson (R-Daphne). It was carried in the Senate by State Senator April Weaver (R-Briarfield). “This bill creates the crime of chemical endangerment of a first responder while that individual is performing his or her duty,” Weaver said. Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) asked, “This is a felony on a person, isn’t it?” Weaver answered, “Yes, it is. We are all very interested in making sure that our first responder personnel are protected when they arrive at a scene.” Weaver said that the prevalence of fentanyl across Alabama is the impetus for this legislation. “This is creating a way for imposing penalties for the chemical endangerment of a first responder,” Weaver said. “The Department of Forensics say that they are seeing so much of that (fentanyl) throughout the state right now.” Singleton asked, “Does this bill deal with the intent to do it?” “Usually, when first responders come, it is due to an emergency,” Singleton said. “I might be having a seizure and convulsing, and I might accidentally touch your face with my hands, and I have fentanyl on them. You are coming to try to save my life. I am not trying to hurt you.” Weaver answered, “Three words: knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally.” Singleton said, “That does address my concern of intent because that is a high bar to prove. I want to make sure that we don’t do something with unintended consequences.” SB230 passed the Alabama Senate 30 to 0. “If he knowingly, negligently, or intentionally injures a first responder with a scheduled one controlled substance,” Simpson said when the legislation was in the House of Representatives. “If it is just physical injury, it is a Class C felony. If it is a serious physical injury, it is a Class B felony. To cause the death of a first responder would be a Class A felony.” Of the four classes of felonies in Alabama – A, B, C, D – A is the most serious and typically carries the largest penalties. “Why did you not have this in your previous bill,” raising the penalties for fentanyl traffickers Rep. Juandalynn Givan asked. “I did not want to muddy the water with that bill,” Simpson explained. “Researching that bill, I talked with officers who had been injured in the line of duty from exposure (to drugs).” “It is not just being around it,” Simpson said. For the crime of chemical endangerment of a first responder, the injury must be caused by “ingestion, inhalation, or contact” with the controlled substance. The House of Representatives passed HB230 as amended on a 105 to 0 vote. The legislation now goes to the governor. Tuesday was day 30 and the final day of the 2023 Alabama Regular Legislative Session. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Legislature passes parental rights bill
The Alabama Legislature passed parental rights legislation on Wednesday. The Alabama Senate voted in favor of the bipartisan legislation 35 to 0. House Bill 6 (HB6) is sponsored by State Representative Kenneth Paschal (R-Pelham). The legislation was carried in the Senate by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore). “This bill simply codifies what is already case law,” Sen. Albritton explained. Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) asked, “Why do we need it? “This would codify what is already in the law,” Albritton explained. “We believe that it strengthens the law and puts into the black letter law what we already have in the case law.” “HB6 is focused on two principles: God and Country,” Rep. Paschal said on the House floor. “Parental rights are related to the noble duty of parents to raise their children. Parental rights are natural rights that cannot be taken away by any form of government.” HB6, as amended, passed the Senate 35 to 0. It already passed the House by a vote of 87 to 8. The bill now goes to the Gov. Kay Ivey, for her consideration. The Alabama Legislature will meet on Tuesday for Day 30 of the legislative session. The Constitution of Alabama limits the legislative session to a maximum of thirty days. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Controversial gambling bill causes issues in closing hours of legislative session
Thursday is the 29th day of the 2023 Alabama Regular Legislative Session, and the Alabama Constitution limits the legislative session to just 30 legislative days. The Senate has an ambitious 27-bill special order calendar to address today, as well as remaining local bills and senate confirmations. All of this was delayed this morning because some Senate Democrats are filibustering confirmations and local bills to keep the Senate from adopting Thursday’s special order calendar. Two issues were responsible for slowing the legislative process, potentially killing dozens of bills before time runs out on the session. State Senator Rodger Smitherman (D-Birmingham) said he is filibustering a controversial provision in the grocery tax cut bill. That provision would prevent a county or municipality that elects to cut its own sales tax on groceries to then come back later and raise the grocery taxes. The legislation, as written, cuts the state sales tax on groceries but does not cut the county, city, or school district sales taxes on groceries. The legislation does, however, bar them from raising the tax on groceries from this point forward. Even if a city council or county commission cuts the tax, they then can’t restore it. Smitherman said that this potentially could “bankrupt my cities.” Sources have told Alabama Today that the second issue is the status of illegal gambling in Greene County. Greene County has legal dog racing and charity bingo, but Greene County dog track, Greenetrack, was not satisfied with that. Because of that, they began offering electronic bingo machines instead of charity bingo. The Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that bingo, under Alabama law, is a game played on paper cards. Therefore the gambling machines at Greenetrack are illegal and should be shut down. Greenetrack has also been found guilty of not paying income taxes. Greenetrack argued unsuccessfully that they are a nonprofit corporation and never owed any income taxes. Last week the Alabama Senate passed a controversial constitutional amendment that would allow Greenetrack and potentially other facilities in Greene County to operate historical horse racing machines where players play a machine that shows a previously raced horse race on an electronic video machine. Senate Bill 324 (SB324) is sponsored by State Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro). “This is a constitutional amendment,” Singleton said when the bill was in committee. “By rule 50, this has to be approved in both the Local Legislation Committee and the Tourism Committee. This has to do with “Racing and Parimutuel for Greene County.” “The Greene County Racing Commission asked me to carry this bill,” Singleton said. This will “add in historical horse racing at one or more tracks in the county.” “This bill has nothing to do with bingo in the county at all,” Singleton told the committee. The Senate Tourism Committee voted to give the bill a favorable report in a 12 to 0 vote, and 24 Senators voted to pass the bill out of the Senate. The House committee did not meet this week to address the legislation. Sources say that gambling proponents want the House Committee to meet in an emergency committee meeting and advance the legislation so that it could be brought to the House floor for a vote before this session ends. To this point, the Legislature has avoided taking up the divisive issue of gambling, which has wasted hours and hours in previous legislative sessions. A source close to the House of Representatives told Alabama Today, “They are not going to advance that legislation.” Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore) said, “It would sure be nice if we could get that same vote on a much bigger type of gambling bill.” As of this morning, Thursday’s special order calendar has been adopted, and legislation is moving. What concessions, if any, have been granted to the minority is unknown at this time. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Legislature passes anti ESG legislation
On Thursday, the Alabama Senate passed legislation that would require companies that want state of Alabama contracts to forgo any sort of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) woke corporations or ESGs. Senate Bill 261 (SB261) is sponsored by State Senator Dan Roberts (R-Mountain Brook). It is carried in the House by Rep. Chip Brown (R-Hollinger’s Island). The anti-ESG legislation would prohibit state and local governments from entering into certain contracts that boycott businesses in certain sectors or based on certain environmental or corporate governance criteria. SB261 has been billed as the strongest anti-ESG legislation in the nation. Though the legislature is split along partisan lines on this legislation, both sides elected not to debate the issue in the House of Representatives. Instead, they advanced the bill directly to a vote when it came up on Wednesday’s special-order calendar. The bill prohibits governmental entities from entering into certain contracts with companies that boycott businesses because the business engages in certain sectors or does not meet certain environmental or corporate governance standards, or does not facilitate certain activities. The legislation authorizes the Attorney General to take action to investigate and enforce this act. “I appreciate the support of my colleagues in the Senate for working to pass this legislation,” Sen. Roberts told reporters. “The Alabama Senate has made it clear that we want businesses to focus on growing and expanding and not working to push any political agenda with left-wing ESG policies.” If a company engages in social activism banned by the legislation, then it can’t do business with any local or state government. According to the bill, “This bill would prohibit a governmental entity from entering into a public contract for goods or services with certain companies or businesses that engage in the economic boycott of businesses in certain sectors and industries; that fail to meet or commit to meet certain environmental standards; that fail to meet or commit to meet certain corporate governance criteria; or that fail to facilitate certain activities.” Companies would have to sign a verification that it does not engage in boycotts of other companies and industries. Governments can opt out of this provision if they can prove that it would have an adverse economic effect on that government if they can’t do business with that company. The bill states, “The Attorney General shall seek to prohibit the adoption of federal laws, rules, regulations, bulletins, executive orders, or other federal actions that may penalize, inflict economic harm on, limit commercial relations with, or change or limit the activities of a company in the state or a resident of the state based on the furtherance of economic boycott criteria or other similarly oriented rating.” It also protects companies from state or local governments trying to pressure them company into adopting woke political action. “No company in this state shall be penalized, have economic harm inflicted on it, have commercial relations limited, or have the activities of the company changed or limited by a governmental entity because the company will not engage in economic boycotts; will not establish or implement policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, reports, products, services, notices, disclosures, or rates or pricing; will not provide or submit answers to surveys or other information requests or disclosures; will not invest in or divest of certain securities, stocks, bonds, bills, partnerships, or other investment arrangements; or will not initiate other corporate or business practices that further social, political, or ideological interests including, but not limited to, economic boycott criteria or other similarly oriented rating.” “We have industry in or state that can be hurt by things going on nationally,” Roberts explained on the Senate floor. “We are trying to put them in position so they can thrive. We are trying to make sure that they have access to the mother’s milk of capital in the future.” Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) brought an amendment to the committee substitute of the bill. “It was given to me by the governor’s office,” Singleton said. “The finance department, they just wanted to make sure that they are protected in dealing with the state’s debt obligations.” Roberts accepted the Singleton amendment as friendly. “I think this is an anti-business bill,” Singleton said. “You are telling people that do business in the state of Alabama that you can’t have a social conscience.” “This is not a pro-business bill,” Singleton said. “Dan, you are wrong on this one. I will tell you, Dan, that you are wrong on this one.” “You can’t listen to Fox and decide what you are going to do,” Singleton continued. “We can’t be Florida 20. We won’t be able to recruit with this on the ground. This is a threat to business. If I don’t sign this paragraph, I can’t do business in Alabama.” Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Reed (R-Jasper) said, “This is a difficult topic. This is one that is at a national level that we have to deal with.” Sen. Sam Givhan (R-Huntsville) said, “We did have great dialogue. We had businesses across the gamut in the state of Alabama. We sat down in a room with them, and they presented us with their redlines.” Sen Robert Stewart (D-Selma) said, “Corporations do have an obligation to be good actors.” Givhan responded, “Their job is to maximize shareholder wealth.” Givhan explained the Singleton amendment, which exempts the State Finance Department from following this when refinancing debt obligations. “Debt obligations – that is targeted at the bond market,” Givhan said. “There is not a lot of businesses in that space. We wanted to make sure that we weren’t shooting ourselves in the head. Some think we may have opened the barn door too much.” SB261 passed the Alabama House of Representatives 74 to 27. It had previously passed the Senate by a vote of 27 to 8. The legislation now goes to the Governor for her consideration. Wednesday was day 28 of the 2023 Alabama Regular Legislative Session. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama lawmakers approve budget after disagreements on local projects
Alabama lawmakers on Friday gave final approval to general fund spending bills after sometimes tense disagreements over local projects and budget projections. Lawmakers worked through the night before giving final passage to the spending bills shortly in the early hours of Friday morning. “This is not the best that there ever has been, but it’s the best we can get to this evening,” said Sen. Greg Albritton, the chairman of the Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund Committee. Legislators gave final approval to a $3 billion general fund budget for the fiscal year beginning in October and a supplemental spending bill for this year. The bills now go to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey. Sharp disagreements had emerged over funding for special projects, with some lawmakers saying their districts had been neglected. “It’s the poorest region of the state, and not one whole million dollars went to West Alabama,” Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton said. Lawmakers from Montgomery successfully fought to restore some funding for a gateway project to improve the area around Maxwell Air Force Base. Sen. Will Barfoot said the base is the “lifeblood of Montgomery.” Lawmakers had also disagreed over how much to spend in the upcoming fiscal year because of concerns about a possible economic downturn. The approved spending plan is about $10 million less than a House-passed plan. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
