Democrats object, Republicans defend Alabama’s new redistricting map.
A Legal Battle Over Alabama’s Congressional Map Could Reach the Supreme Court
A federal court in Alabama is set to decide the fate of a recently passed congressional map by state Republican lawmakers for the 2024 election. This legal fight has the potential to escalate to the Supreme Court, especially after the justices ruled against a previous map that lacked a second black-majority district.
Democrats and activist groups have strongly opposed the new map, which was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last month. On the other hand, GOP defenders argue that the high court did not explicitly require proportionality or a second black-majority district.
Challenges to the Map
Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL) and members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) filed a brief on Thursday, asserting that the “redistricting plan Alabama legislators approved on July 21, S.B. 5 (‘the Livingston Plan’), dilutes the voting strength of Black voters in Alabama and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (‘VRA’).”
According to Robert Fram, an attorney representing Sewell and CBC members, the proposal “renders impossible electoral victory for any Black-preferred candidate” and fails to comply with the recent high court decision against the state’s 2021 map in Allen v. Milligan, a narrow 5-4 decision.
However, the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s redistricting arm, argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Milligan ”maintains an indecipherable status quo” that will require clarity sooner rather than later.
The New Map’s Provisions
The new map includes changes to the 7th Congressional District, which would have a 51% black voting-age population if approved by the district court. The 2nd District would also undergo changes, losing Autauga County, Conecuh County, and parts of Elmore and Covington counties, but gaining Lowndes, Macon, and Russell counties. The black voting-age population in the 2nd District would increase from 32% to approximately 40%.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, the district court’s earlier opinion in the Allen v. Milligan case stated 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.” However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion notably excludes that quote, while Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent references it as a ”thinly disguised benchmark.”
Debates and Potential Appeals
Ilya Shapiro, a director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, argues that the media’s portrayal of Alabama “defying” the Supreme Court is a “case of gaslighting.” Shapiro believes that the challengers to Alabama’s new map are actually asking the federal district court to defy the justices by ordering racially proportionate redistricting, which the Supreme Court has rejected.
A three-judge panel will decide if the newly enacted map passed by Republicans will stand for the upcoming 2024 election. The trial on the merits will take place after the hearing scheduled for August 14. The final map must be in place by early October to allow candidates enough time to prepare for the primary elections in March.
If the panel rules that the map needs to be redrawn with a second majority-black district, a special master may be appointed to revise the map, potentially increasing the chances of two Democrats representing Alabama in the House. Additionally, if the district court rejects the new GOP-drawn map, it could lead to an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
Jason Torchinsky, an election law specialist, believes that this case presents an opportunity for Alabama Republicans to seek another chance at arguing before the Supreme Court.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
