Alabama rushes to adopt new congressional map amid disagreement on what district should look like
Federal judges that ordered Alabama to draw new congressional lines said the state should have a second district where Black voters are the majority “or something quite close to it” and have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice. What exactly that map should look like is in dispute as lawmakers rush to draw new lines. Alabama lawmakers convene in a special session Monday tasked by the court with adopting a new map by the end of the week. The directive comes after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Alabama’s existing congressional map — with a single Black district — likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The group of voters who sued the state and won before the Supreme Court have proposed the creation of a second district where Black residents are 50.5% of the population. But Alabama Republicans, who hold a lopsided majority in the Alabama Legislature and will control the redistricting process, have not ceded they must create a second majority-Black district and have pointed to proposals with lower percentages of Black voters. The GOP majority will release their proposed map on Monday. “Even among the plaintiffs suing the state, the meaning of an equal opportunity to elect candidates of choice is in dispute,” House Speaker Pro Tempore Chris Pringle, who serves as co-chairman of the state redistricting committee, said during a public hearing Thursday. The U.S. Supreme Court last month affirmed a lower-court ruling finding Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act with a congressional map that had only one majority Black district out of seven in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The three-judge panel gave Alabama until Friday to adopt a new map and submit it for review. “The appropriate remedy is a congressional redistricting plan that includes 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 three-judge panel wrote in its 2022 ruling, adding that it will need to include two districts in which “Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” The Supreme Court decision was cheered by voting rights groups who said it would give Black voters a greater voice in the Deep South state. “The eyes of the nation are looking at you. I know it’s hard. I know you have people that you answer to,” Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, told lawmakers. “But if you can cut out the noise, look within, you can look to history. You can make a mark in history that will that will set a standard for this country.” Milligan, a longtime resident of Montgomery, said he is six generations removed from slavery. “My son and daughter are the seventh generation. When I look at them, I want to commit to them inheriting an Alabama that allows them an opportunity to lead, to dream and to make contributions to the community, the same that you want for your children and your grandchildren,” Milligan said. The Supreme Court decision sets up Alabama’s first significant revamp of its congressional districts since 1992, when Alabama was ordered by the courts to create its first majority-Black district. That led to the state electing its first Black member of Congress since Reconstruction. The district has been represented by a Black Democrat ever since. Partisan politics underlies the looming redistricting fight. Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority, or close to one, that could send another Democrat to Congress. Democrats cheered the possibility of gaining a seat or at least a swing district in the GOP-dominated state. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who represents the state in the redistricting lawsuit, wrote in a letter to the committee that plaintiffs had initially argued for a “fair chance” to compete but now want more. “Now they demand a plan that provides not just a ‘fair chance’ to compete, but instead a guarantee of Democratic victories in at least two districts,” Marshall wrote. Marshall said the plaintiffs’ proposed map divides voters based on “stereotypes about how voters of certain races will vote.” Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference — the state’s oldest Black political organization — urged lawmakers to compromise with plaintiffs on a plan. He said state lawmakers can either draw a plan that the court will approve or the court will draw it for them. “We know there will be two majority Black districts,” Reed said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Terri Sewell hosts symposium on Shelby v. Holder
On Wednesday, Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL07) led a symposium in Birmingham on the landmark Supreme Court ruling Shelby v. Holder that struck down the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act 1965. “This morning, I convened some of our nation’s premiere civil rights and voting rights leaders at the 16th Street Baptist Church to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder decision which gutted the Voting Rights Act,” said Sewell on Facebook. “In the decade since the Shelby decision, one thing is clear—old battles have become new again as the right to vote has come under attack. But we in Alabama have seen this before and we’re not going down without a fight. The Foot Soldiers left us a blueprint to protect their progress and advance it. Drawing courage from their sacrifice, we will protect the right to vote in Alabama and across the country.” Sewell was joined on Wednesday by President & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Maya Wiley, former U.S. Senator Doug Jones, the President & General Counsel of the Mexican Americans Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) Thomas A. Saenz, the Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Tona Boyd, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Jacqueline De Leon, Birmingham Civil Rights Institute President & CEO DeJuana Thompson, the executive director of Alabama Forward Evan Milligan, the Co-Founder & Executive Director of Black Voters Matter Cliff Albright, the Vice President of Census & Voting Programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) Terry A. Minnis, the Co-Director of the Voting Rights Project for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Marcia Johnson, and the Alabama Policy Director for the Southern Poverty Law Center Jerome Dees. “The Shelby decision was decided in 2013,” Sewell said. “It had tremendous ramifications. The disastrous decision in Shelby versus Holder gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” Sewell said. “The preclearance section stopped really restrictive voting laws before they went into effect.” “The Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights is the lobbying arm of the civil rights movement,” President Wiley said. “Barack Obama won in 2008, and that was the beginning of the end of bipartisanship on voting rights.” “In 2006, George Bush supported, and very few members of Congress were willing to oppose, extending the Voting Rights Act,” Wiley said. “After Obama’s win, things changed. Instead of contesting for our votes, they made it harder for us to vote,” Wiley said. Sen. Jones said, “Terri has become, since the death of John Lewis, the champion of voting rights in the U.S. Congress.” Jones said that in the effort to make it harder to vote, “we (the state of Alabama) have kind of led the way.” Jones said that Alabama has a “very restrictive voting law.” “Alabama has done a good job of registering people, but we have made it very difficult to vote,” Jones said. “Our voting is still below the national average, even in Georgia.” “Racial turnout gaps have increased in Alabama over the last ten years,” Sewell said. “I am proud to be the lead sponsor of the John Robert Lewis Voter Protection Act. Restoring preclearance is the key to unlocking a lot of the voting suppression laws that we have.” Saenz said the Shelby v. Holder ruling gave “a green light to further restrict people of color, blacks, and Latinos.” “But for Shelby County, Texas would be a swing state today,” Saenz said. “The Voting Rights Act was the most effective federal civil rights law in United States history.” Since Shelby County v. Holder, Saenz said it is much more difficult for MALDEF to be aware of voting process changes, especially at the local level. “A pronounced lack of transparency in what is happening at local levels across this country to suppress minority voters across this country,” Saenz said. “We don’t know about some of these changes until it is too late to go into court to do something.” “There are five states where the Black population is rising faster than the Hispanic population, and Alabama is one of those states,” Jones said. “20% of the Black population is under the age of 20. Times are a changing, and the people on the other side know it.” Jones said that nonpartisan committees for redistricting congressional seats and legislatures is a change that is needed. “Congress needs to pass some minimal standards for early voting,” Jones said. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell to commemorate 10th anniversary of landmark Shelby County versus Holder ruling
Congresswoman Terri Sewell will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the landmark Shelby County vs. Holder Supreme Court decision with two events on Tuesday and Wednesday. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the controversial preclearance section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was archaic and no longer legally enforceable, upsetting many in the civil rights community, including Rep. Sewell. “Exactly 10 years ago, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in its disastrous Shelby County vs. Holder decision, unleashing a wave of voting restrictions across the nation,” Rep. Sewell said Sunday on Facebook. Sewell is the author and lead sponsor of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. If passed, the bill would restore the requirement that southern states receive preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division before legislatures can pass changes to their voting rules or decennial redistricting. The federal courts have recently found Alabama in violation of the remaining intact provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with its congressional redistricting in the Allen vs. Milligan decision. Congresswoman Sewell will be joined by retired federal Judge U.W. Clemon, State Senator Rodger Smitherman (D-Birmingham), State Senator Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham), Miles College President Bobbie Knight, Fairfield Mayor Eddie Penny, Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, and Birmingham Times Executive Editor Barnett Wright for a panel discussion on the Supreme Court’s Allen v. Milligan Decision on Tuesday at Miles College. Sewell will be joined on Wednesday by President & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Maya Wiley, former U.S. Senator Doug Jones (D-Alabama), the President & General Counsel of MALDEF Thomas A. Saenz, the Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Tona Boyd, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Jacqueline De Leon, Birmingham Civil Rights Institute President & CEO DeJuana Thompson, the executive director of Alabama Forward Evan Milligan, the Co-Founder & Executive Director of Black Voters Matter Cliff Albright, the Vice President of Census & Voting Programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) Terry A. Minnis, the Co-Director of the Voting Rights Project for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Marcia Johnson, and the Alabama Policy Director for the Southern Poverty Law Center Jerome Dees. The group will hold a symposium, “Shelby County a Decade Later: The Path Forward in Our Ongoing Fight for the Right to Vote,” at the historic 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham on Wednesday. Sewell is the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Administration Subcommittee on Elections. Sewell is in her seventh term representing Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Democratic leadership address the Supreme Court rejection of Alabama’s congressional redistricting
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Alabama must redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black. The Alabama House Democratic Caucus and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus both applauded the ruling. Alabama House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (D-Huntsville) said, “During a severely short and limited map-drawing process, our Caucus spoke at length about our view of the law and provided ways the state could craft at least two districts that reflect fair political opportunities for African American voters.” “We are therefore pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the unanimous district court, which found the Alabama maps were discriminatory,” Daniels continued. “We stand ready to participate meaningfully with our colleagues to create a new map that fully complies with the law.” Rep. Terri Sewell wrote on Twitter, “Wow!!! The Supreme Court just upheld Section 2 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 and protected the voices of Black and minority voters. This is a historic victory not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself.” In a press release, Sewell said, “This is a historic victory, not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself. With this decision, the Supreme Court is saying loudly and clearly that the voices of minority voters matter and that fair representation must be upheld. I know that John Lewis and the Foot Soldiers of the Voting Rights Movement are smiling as they look down on us. Today, their sacrifice was rewarded. Our work is not over. We must continue the fight for fair representation by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” State Senator Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) is the Chair of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus. “From the beginning of this case, we have strongly denounced racial gerrymandering and will continue our efforts to ensure that districts are drawn equitably and fairly,” said Sen. Coleman. “I applaud Chief Justice (John) Roberts for preserving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is a major victory for Black voters in Alabama, as well as the entire nation.” State Representative Napoleon Bracy, Jr. (D-Prichard) is the Vice Chair of the Alabama Black Legislative Caucus. “In a resounding victory for fair representation, the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision stands as a powerful testament to the importance of upholding the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Bracy said. “By prohibiting racial gerrymandering in Alabama, the Court reaffirms the principle that every citizen’s voice deserves to be heard, regardless of their race. This ruling sends a clear message that political power should not be diluted through discriminatory practices, ensuring that the spirit of democracy remains strong and inclusive in Alabama.” In 2021, the Alabama state legislature produced new congressional maps which closely paralleled the previous 2012 redistricting with just one Black majority district. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the majority of the Court sided with the plaintiffs and affirmed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the Alabama legislature to draw a second district where minority voters can elect a candidate of their choice. The decision will also have an impact across the South, as today’s decision clears the way for additional minority districts to be drawn in other states with challenged maps, like Georgia and Louisiana. “It is hard to imagine many more fundamental ‘prerequisites’ to voting than determining where to cast your ballot or who you are eligible to vote for,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The 34-page decision in Milligan penned by Roberts recommits to the Voting Rights Act’s promise as the foundation for justice for all, not just some. Roberts was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kentaji Brown Jackson, and Brett Kavanaugh. Jeff Loperfido is the Interim Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “This is a great day for democracy and for the voting rights of Black and Brown communities throughout the South who continue to be the targets of discriminatory laws that seek to silence their voices and stifle their growing political power,” said Loperfido. “The Court’s forceful repudiation of Alabama’s extreme and disingenuous ‘race-blind’ mapping theory is a testament to the important role the Voting Rights Act plays in rooting out discriminatory electoral practices.” The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb brought the case in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. It was argued before the Court on Oct. 4, 2022. The case goes back to the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that originally ruled against the State of Alabama. The Supreme Court had stayed its ruling last year at the request of Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, and then-Secretary of State John Merrill. The three-judge panel will decide whether to order the Legislature to redraw the districts following the orders of the Court or order the state to adopt a zoning map drawn by the courts. Two alternative maps were presented to the Court by the plaintiffs. The easiest thing would be for the three judges to order the state to accept one of those maps. Whatever happens, Alabama’s Congressional maps will look substantially different than they are today by the end of the year. This will likely impact hundreds of thousands of Alabama voters. The major party primaries for the congressional districts will be on March 6. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections. The decision was closely watched for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, Republican-led legislatures in Alabama and Louisiana will have to redraw maps so that they could increase Black representation. The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections — and in arguments last October, the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.” Roberts was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021. The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision forces “Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population. Section 2 demands no such thing, and, if it did, the Constitution would not permit it.” The Biden administration sided with the Black voters in Alabama. Attorney General Merrick Garland applauded the ruling: “Today’s decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race.” Evan Milligan, a Black voter and the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was a victory for democracy and people of color. “We are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld what we knew to be true: that everyone deserves to have their vote matter and their voice heard. Today is a win for democracy and freedom not just in Alabama but across the United States,” Milligan said. The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black. A three-judge court, with two appointees of former President Donald Trump, had little trouble concluding that the plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of Black Alabamians. The panel ordered a new map drawn. But the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, where five conservative justices prevented the lower-court ruling from going forward. At the same time, the court decided to hear the Alabama case. Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn. Partisan politics underlies the case, and in a closely divided House of Representatives, Thursday’s ruling could have a significant effect. Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority, or close to one, that could send another Democrat to Congress. The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice. Alabama’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found. Denying discrimination, Alabama argued that the lower court ruling would have forced it to sort voters by race and insisted it was taking a “race-neutral” approach to redistricting. At arguments in October, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson scoffed at the idea that race could not be part of the equation. Jackson, the court’s first Black woman, said that constitutional amendments passed after the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act a century later were intended to do the same thing, make Black Americans “equal to white citizens.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Supreme Court to rule soon on Alabama Congressional Districts
Alabama’s Congressional Districts could be thrown into chaos in the coming weeks if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a lower court decision in a case challenging the 2021 congressional redistricting by the Alabama Legislature. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Milligan versus Merrill will be announced in the next few weeks. This decision could have a wide-ranging impact on when states must draw minority-majority districts. The plaintiffs claim that since Blacks are over 27% of the population of Alabama, the Legislature should have drawn two majority-minority districts, not one (Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District). A federal three-judge panel ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the Legislature to redraw the districts. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which voted 5 to 4 to stay the lower court decision until they hear and decide the case. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said that the Supreme Court granted the State’s motion, allowing the Alabama Congressional District map as drawn by the Legislature in November to stand for now. “I’m gratified that the Supreme Court has stepped in to halt the district court’s order, which would have resulted in a congressional map that would have unconstitutionally divided Alabamians based on race,” Marshall stated. “As we have explained throughout this litigation, Alabama’s 2021 plan is an ordinary plan that looks much like the plan approved by a federal court in 1992, the plan approved by a majority-Democratic legislature in 2001, and the plan approved by a majority-Republican legislature in 2011. “Plaintiffs demand a significant overhaul to the map to create a second majority-Black district, but their own experts showed that no such map could be drawn unless traditional race-neutral principles took a back seat to voters’ race,” Marshall explained. “Indeed, one expert used her algorithm to draw two million random versions of Alabama’s map based on race-neutral principles, and not a single one had two majority-black districts. That is why each of the plans proposed by Plaintiffs would split Mobile County for the first time ever, to join voters in Mobile with voters as far away as Phenix City, based on race, all while dividing long-recognized communities centered on the Gulf Coast’s unique economy and culture.” The lawsuit challenging the map was brought by Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letitia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, who are represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union) of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. Civil Rights groups are concerned that the opinion could further narrow the Voting Rights Act, similar to the landmark decision in Shelby v. Holder, which found that the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act was an arcane measure that had no relevance in the modern world. As a result of the landmark Shelby v. Holder decision, the 2021 redistricting was the first in the state of Alabama in decades that did not have to get preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice. A victory for the state of Alabama could give state legislatures nationwide more flexibility in how they draw their districts. A strong for the plaintiffs could impact districts beyond Alabama and spark more lawsuits as the two political parties use the courts to gain advantage over the other. On November 2022, six Alabama congressional incumbents (5 Republicans and 1 Democrat) easily sailed to re-election with little drama in districts that look much like how their districts were drawn a decade ago. Alabama congressional Republicans held on to the open Fifth Congressional District. No Alabama congressional district has flipped parties since the Second Congressional District flipped from Democrat to Republican control in 2010. Then Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby defeated incumbent Congressman Bobby Bright. That was also the last time that an Alabama Congressional incumbent lost re-election. The decision is due before the end of June. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on case challenging Alabama redistricting
On Tuesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Merrill versus Milligan. The case will decide whether or not Alabama’s redrawn congressional map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Evan Milligan, the Director of Alabama Forward, sued in federal court, claiming that the 2021 redistricting congressional map prepared and passed by the Alabama Legislature dilutes the voting power of African Americans in the state. In Alabama, African Americans make up over 27% of the eligible voters, but six of the seven Congressional districts are majority White. Congresswoman Terri Sewell is the only African American in Alabama’s Congressional Delegation and is the only Democrat to hold any office higher than State Senator in the state of Alabama. She attended today’s oral arguments. “We in Alabama are no strangers to the fight for fair representation,” said Rep. Sewell. “After all, it was in Selma—almost six decades ago—where John Lewis and so many Foot Soldiers shed blood on a bridge for the equal right of all Americans to vote. But today, we know that old battles have become new again. As the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains on life-support, states across the nation are racing to restrict voting access to dilute our power and erase our progress. Today, they are taking aim at one of the last remaining provisions of the VRA, Section 2.” “Fair representation matters,” continued Sewell. “I urge our Justices to do what is right and uphold the protections that our foremothers and forefathers fought so hard to secure. I also urge the Senate to do its job and pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full power of the VRA.” In 2013 Sewell attended the oral arguments of the Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder case which Shelby County challenged Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming that the section which required that the state get preclearance for any voting changes, including redistricting, was obsolete. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Shelby County and the City of Calera and invalidated Section 4. The result of that decision meant that the Biden Justice Department did not have to give preclearance to the 2021 redistricting and other voting law changes that have occurred since Shelby v. Holder. Milligan and his attorneys claim that the six majority to 1 majority-minority split by the legislature (which mirrors the 2010 redistricting that was approved by the Obama Justice Department) is a violation of Section 2. Milligan and Alabama Forward argued that the state should have two Black-majority districts. John Merrill is Alabama’s Secretary of State and, as such, is tasked with being the state’s top election official. A lower court panel of three judges agreed with Milligan, but the State of Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in a stay of the lower court decision. The state has argued that the only way to create two majority-Black districts would be to focus solely on race, which the state argues the Supreme Court has already directed them not to do. The state has also argued that such a map would unnecessarily disturb communities of interest, such as putting Baldwin and Mobile, Alabama’s two coastal counties a consideration, in different districts. The court could affirm that the Alabama Legislature got it right, or the court could order a new map to be drawn. It would be up to the court whether that new map would be drawn by the Legislature or by the court itself. Alabama Today has obtained four alternative maps that have been drawn, creating either creating two majority-minority districts or, failing that, two districts that would likely be won by a minority, including one that does not divide counties. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Black representation in Alabama tested before Supreme Court
The invisible line dividing two of Alabama’s congressional districts slices through Montgomery, near iconic sites from the civil rights movement as well as ones more personal to Evan Milligan. There’s the house where his grandfather loaded people into his station wagon and drove them to their jobs during the Montgomery Bus Boycott as Black residents spurned city buses to protest segregation. It’s the same home where his mother lived as a child, just yards from a whites-only park and zoo she was not allowed to enter. The spot downtown where Rosa Parks was arrested, igniting the boycott, sits on one side of the dividing line, while the church pastored by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the protests, sits on the other. The lines are at the center of a high-stakes redistricting case bearing Milligan’s name that will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, setting up a new test of the Voting Rights Act and the role of race in drawing congressional boundaries. At the center of the case is a challenge by various groups arguing that the state violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters when it failed to create a second district in which they make up a majority, or close to it. African Americans account for about 27% of the state’s population but are the majority in just one of the state’s seven congressional districts. “Our congressional map is not reflective of the population that lives in Alabama,” said Milligan, 41, one of several voters who joined interest groups in filing the lawsuit. The case the Supreme Court will take up Tuesday centers on whether congressional districts in Alabama were drawn to reduce the political influence of Black voters, but it’s also part of a much broader problem that undermines representative government in the U.S. Both major political parties have practiced gerrymandering — drawing congressional and state legislative boundaries to cement their hold on power — but Republicans have been in control of the process in far more states since after the 2010 elections. That has allowed them to win an outsized share of statehouse and U.S. House seats and means GOP policies — including on abortion restrictions — often don’t reflect the will of most voters. An Associated Press analysis from 2017 showed that Alabama had one of the most gerrymandered congressional maps in the country. Republicans dominate elected office in Alabama and are in charge of redistricting. They have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority that could send another Democrat to Congress. A three-judge panel that included two appointees of President Donald Trump ruled unanimously in January that the Alabama Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act with the map. “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the panel said. The judges ordered state lawmakers to draw new lines for this year’s election and create a second district where Black voters either made up a majority or near majority of the population. But on a 5-4 vote in February, the Supreme Court sided with Alabama to allow this year’s congressional elections to take place without adding a second predominantly Black district. Two justices suggested it was too close to spring primaries to make a change. The lawsuit claims the Alabama congressional map dilutes the voting strength of Black residents by packing a large number of them into a single district — the 7th, where 55% of voters are Black — while fragmenting other communities. That includes the state’s Black Belt region and the city of Montgomery. The current districts leave the vast majority of Black voters with no realistic chance to elect their preferred congressional candidates anywhere outside the 7th district, the lawsuit contends. “This is just about getting Black voters, finally, in Alabama, the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. It’s not necessarily guaranteeing that they will have their candidate elected,” said Deuel Ross, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs. The groups contend that the state’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district. Milligan, who is six generations removed from enslaved ancestors who lived in the Black Belt, ticked off the consequences for Black residents who are not able to have representation that aligns with their needs: addressing generational poverty, the lack of adequate internet service, Medicaid expansion and the desire for a broader array of health care services. “In choosing not to do that, you’re denying the people of the Black Belt the opportunity to elect an additional person that can really go to the mat on their interests,” said Ross, who is one of the attorneys who will argue the case in a challenge backed by the Biden administration. African Americans served in Alabama’s congressional delegation following the Civil War in the period known as Reconstruction. They did not return until 1993, a year after the courts ordered the state to reconfigure the 7th Congressional District into a majority-Black one, which has since been held by a succession of Black Democrats. That 1992 map remains the basis for the one in use today. “Under numerous court challenges, the courts have approved this basic plan. All we did is adjust it for population deviation,” said state Rep. Chris Pringle, a Republican and chairman of the legislative committee that drew the new lines. Alabama argued in court filings that the state’s Black population is too spread out to be able to create a second majority district without abandoning core redistricting principles such as keeping districts compact and keeping communities of interest together. Drawing such a district, the state argued, would require mapping acrobatics, such as connecting coastal areas in southwest Alabama to peanut farms in the east. In a statement to The Associated Press, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the map is “based on race-neutral redistricting principles that were approved by a bipartisan group of legislators.” He said it looks similar to
Southern Poverty Law Center announces grants to boost voter participation in marginalized communities
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has announced funding aimed at boosting voter participation that will focus on marginalized Black and non-white voters, reported AL.com. The $4.6 million in funding from SPLC will go to 39 voter outreach organizations across the Deep South. The Vote Your Voice grants aim to boost voting education and mobilization, especially among communities of color. Alabama received $210,000 total from the latest round of grants. According to the SPLC website, the grants will support voter education, registration, and mobilization, especially among communities of color. The grants add to an earlier investment of more than $11 million in two-year grants awarded last year. Evan Milligan, executive director of Alabama Forward, said that the Montgomery-based non-profit civic engagement group received $90,000 that will go toward hosting the festival. “Alabama Forward is excited to use these ‘Vote Your Voice’ grants to empower communities, especially young Alabamians, to make their voice heard through their vote. We are using popular education tactics to infuse music with releasable and hopeful messages that invited artists and influencers to freshly consider the value of voting this November,” stated Milligan. Additionally, The Ordinary People Society received $90,000, and the Alabama Institute for Social Justice received $30,000. “With the recent wave of unprecedented attacks on civil rights and liberties that disproportionately target communities of color, women, and people with disabilities, it is more important than ever to defend our right to vote and make our voices heard,” stated Lecia Brooks, chief of staff and culture for SPLC. “These grants will empower communities to get out to the polls, exercise their freedom to vote, and stand up for their right to an equal voice in government.” According to AL.com, the money will be applied toward hosting Trap Democracy festivals that will run from 4-9 p.m. for each event. The festivals will take place in the following cities: Friday, September 23, at King’s Canvass in Montgomery Friday, October 7, in Troy Saturday, October 8, in Mobile Friday, October 14, in Huntsville Saturday, October 15 in Talladega Friday, October 21 in Tuscaloosa Saturday, October 22 in Birmingham The location for most of those festivals has not been announced.
Justices weigh Alabama’s bid to stop redistricting order
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing Alabama’s request to freeze a court order requiring the state to draw new congressional lines and create a second district with a significant number of Black voters. Alabama has asked the court to halt an injunction issued by a three-judge panel blocking the use of the current map after the panel found it likely violates the Voting Rights Act. The Alabama attorney general argued the ruling will throw 2022 elections into chaos and require the state to put race above other redistricting criteria. But lawyers for people and organizations that brought the initial lawsuit dispute that and argue the current lines — similar to those in use since the 1990s — do not reflect a state that has grown more racially diverse. “This is very much a textbook case of a Voting Rights Act violation,” said NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior counsel Deuel Ross, whose organization represented the plaintiffs in the case. The three-judge panel last month found Alabama’s map, drawn by the GOP-dominated Alabama Legislature, likely violates the Voting Rights Act because, “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.” The decision cited Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits racial discrimination in election procedures. Alabama’s congressional delegation has for years consisted of one Black representative elected from a heavily Black district and six white representatives elected from heavily white districts. The judges added that any “remedial plan will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” U.S. Census numbers show the state has grown racially more diverse since 1990. Black people make up about 27% of the state’s population while white people make up 63% of the population. “We think that Alabama has an obligation to draw fair maps that are reflective of the state’s very rich history of diversity, not just racial diversity, but diversity in terms of representation for everyone,” Ross said. The Alabama attorney general argues the ruling will improperly require states to prioritize race over other redistricting criteria. “The court-ordered redraw marks a radical change from decades of Alabama’s congressional plans. It will result in a map that can be drawn only by placing race first above race-neutral districting criteria, sorting and splitting voters across the State on the basis of race alone,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote in the state’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourteen conservative-led states signed on to a brief in support of Alabama, arguing that the ruling and “absence of clarity no doubt means litigation will ensue across the country over new maps.” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed a brief along with attorneys general from Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. Lawyers for plaintiffs argued Alabama is misrepresenting the ruling as prioritizing race instead of assessing whether an additional majority-Black district could be created consistent with compactness and traditional districting principles. It is unclear when the court will rule but Alabama faces a looming deadline to get new maps in place unless justices intervene. The three-judge panel pushed back the congressional candidate qualification deadline with political parties from Friday until February 11 to allow the Legislature the opportunity to enact a remedial plan. Alabama lawmakers appear to be waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The legislative reapportionment committee has not met since the ruling of the three-judge panel, some members said. “The attorney general has filed motions of stay and of appeal with the Supreme Court and we’re just going to need to see what the outcomes are, Senate President Pro Tem Greg Reed said. The three judges that issued the unanimous ruling consisted of one judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton — Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus — and two judges appointed by former President Donald Trump — U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco and U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer. Evan Milligan, a Montgomery resident and the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said Alabama likely would have lost a congressional seat if not for the population growth of minority groups, including people born in other countries. “To produce maps that undercount the voting strength of the very population that’s contributing to the ability of the state to even have seven congressional districts is even more indefensible to me,” Milligan said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
