On July 21, Alabama Governor, Kay Ivey, signed off on controversial district maps, which, according to a panel of federal judges, failed to provide fair opportunities for Black Alabamian voters. Governor Ivey’s decision echoed her belief that the state legislature, rather than federal courts or activist groups, had a better understanding of Alabama’s demographics and districts. This move was met with stark opposition and, in response, a three-judge panel from the Northern District of Alabama subsequently rejected these maps, appointing a special master to redraw Alabama’s congressional districts.
Earlier, in January 2022, the same panel had rang down the state’s original maps under the Voting Rights Act’s (VRA) Section 2. However, in a closely contested decision, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court’s order, arguing it was too close to the 2022 political elections to amend the maps. The impact of this decision on the VRA’s future raised concerns. Still, there was a paradigm shift when Justice Kavanaugh, in June, upheld the trial court’s ruling against the state.
The trial court immediately mandated the state to revise its maps before October 2023, getting ready for the 2024 election. Instead, the Alabama State Legislature countered with another map, predicting a significant win for the Republicans, despite approximately 26% of the population being Black and 35% leaning towards the Democrats. Governor Ivey, known for her strong law-and-order stance, dismissed the court’s authority on this matter.
The newly-drawn maps initiated a legal challenge, and the court ruled against Governor Ivey and the State Legislature. The panel, composed of Judges Stanley Marcus, Anna Manasco, and Terry Moorer (two of whom were appointed by President Trump), didn’t hold back, expressing their deep concern about the state’s disregard for the additional district required by federal law for fair representation in line with the VRA. Astonishingly, the state acknowledged that the 2023 Plan doesn’t include this essential district.
The court went on to provide hundreds of pages of evidence, proving that Alabama’s congressional map-drawing process disenfranchises Black citizens. The court also appointed a special master and a cartographer to craft an additional district, providing Black Alabamians with a fair opportunity to help elect their preferred candidate. The open defiance of Alabama’s governor and legislature raises the question – will someone in Alabama end up being held in contempt of court?
The case in question, Milligan v. Allen, continues to raise critical questions about voting rights and the role of federal law in shaping state politics.