Alabama is once again under the spotlight of the Supreme Court. The state is contesting that it does not need to create two majority-Black congressional districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act. This issue arose after the rejection of the state’s second map and subsequent instruction by the lower court for experts to redraft it. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog reports that Alabama returned to the Supreme Court on Monday, appealing for a stay on the lower court’s order.
The initial dispute started after the state’s legislature, following the 2020 census, created a map with only one majority-Black district. This led to a federal lawsuit from voters and civil rights groups, claiming the state had unlawfully dispersed many Black voters across several districts, thereby inhibiting their ability to elect preferred candidates. A federal court saw merit in this argument and demanded the state to establish a second majority-Black district.
Subsequent legal challenges saw Alabama winning the chance to use their initial map for the 2022 elections, only for the Supreme Court to later uphold the lower court’s ruling in favor of the civil rights groups. Despite this, the state continued to enact maps with only one majority-Black district, the latest in July 2021. This resulted in a lengthy opinion by the lower court on Sept. 5, criticizing the state’s repeated attempts to avoid a two majority-Black district map, and leading the court to appoint two experts to draw a new map.
The state is now asking the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the lower court’s rejection basis for the 2023 map is solely due to the lack of a second majority-Black district, which is not a requirement by federal law. The state asserts that it addressed the flaws raised in the 2021 map and was careful to adhere to redistricting principles, such as district compactness and local community unity. As such, Alabama is keen to know by early October whether the 2023 map will come into effect for the 2024 elections, with the state’s primaries slated for March 5, 2024.
To stay tuned with the latest on this case, follow the continued coverage by Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog.