Alabama seeks US Supreme Court review in dispute over congressional district map.
Alabama lawmakers have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) over the state’s congressional redistricting fight.
This comes hours after a federal court struck down the latest map on Sept. 5, months after allegedly ignoring a similar court order requiring that the state lawmakers adhere to the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen immediately filed an appeal to the Supreme Court and a stay on the latest ruling until the state’s case is heard.
“Notice is hereby given that Defendant Secretary of State Wes Allen hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from this Court’s September 5, 2023 Injunction, Opinion, and Order,” court documents said.
However, SCOTUS is expected to strike down the map after it rejected a similar draft on June 8, which ruled that state lawmakers had allegedly racially gerrymandered districts in violation of the VRA.
State officials also filed an appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a precautionary measure.
In response to Alabama’s appeal, President Joe Biden’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court, “Voting in Alabama is intensely racially polarized, about as stark as anywhere in the country.”
“The history and effects of racial discrimination in the state are severe. Black voters are significantly underrepresented.”
Alabama Republicans Lose Third Ruling Over Redistricting
A three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled that changes to the map were not sufficient.
Judge Stanley Marcus, an appointee of President Bill Clinton and Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, who were both appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote the decision.
The recently rejected map, which was passed by the Alabama legislature in July, includes one majority-black district and another where 40 percent of the voting population is black.
“We do not take lightly federal intrusion into a process ordinarily reserved for the State Legislature. But we have now said twice that this Voting Rights Act case is not close,” the panel wrote.
“But we have now said twice that this Voting Rights Act case is not close. And we are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires.”
“We are disturbed by the evidence that the State delayed remedial proceedings but ultimately did not even nurture the ambition to provide the required remedy. And we are struck by the extraordinary circumstance we face.
“We are not aware of any other case in which a state legislature—faced with a federal court order declaring that its electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes and requiring a plan that provides an additional opportunity district—responded with a plan that the state concedes does not provide that district.”
“The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The 2023 Plan plainly fails to do so.”
The court rejected Alabama’s argument that drawing a second black-majority district would unconstitutionally constitute “affirmative action in redistricting.”
“Unlike affirmative action in the admissions programs the Supreme Court analyzed in Harvard, which was expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies, the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race,'” they added.
The court was referring to the June SCOTUS decision, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which struck down the use of racially discriminatory admissions policies at U.S. colleges.
“The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters—it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most ‘fundamental political right,’ in that it is ‘preservative of all rights’—the right to vote,” the panel concluded.
The court also ordered that a special master and a cartographer would have to prepare and submit three new, statutorily compliant maps by Sept. 25.
A hearing is scheduled for opponents of the map for Oct. 3.
Kavanaugh and Roberts Side With Democrats
In January 2022, the district court issued a preliminary injunction against Mr. Allen’s predecessor, Alabama’s then-secretary of state, John Merrill, which temporarily forbade him from conducting any congressional elections in the state.
The state took the lower court’s ruling to SCOTUS for an appeal, but in May, the higher court ruled in Allen v. Milligan (pdf) that Alabama had to redraw its congressional map to include a se
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
