The legal battle over Alabama’s congressional map has taken another turn as the state has approached the Supreme Court to request the use of a map previously struck down by a lower court for racial discrimination. This filing, part of a continuing legal saga, follows a previous decision by the Supreme Court that permitted the map’s use despite pushback from lower federal judges. The state urges the justices to pause the latest decision by the federal panel that blocked the map, arguing that it “intentionally discriminated based on race” in violation of constitutional requirements.
In the latest filing, Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre cited potential harm to the state and public if the map is not restored for the 2026 elections. He emphasized the provision of a court-drawn map, which the state contends does not meet its legitimate goals. The origin of this case dates back to 2021 when Alabama’s map was challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. A federal district court had found that the map diluted the voting power of Black Alabamians by spreading them across multiple districts, rendering them a minority in each. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, resulting in the state drawing a new map which faced similar challenges.
After a series of appeals and rulings, the Supreme Court initially sent the case back to the lower court for a review in light of its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which had raised the bar for plaintiffs claiming a violation of the Voting Rights Act. However, a panel of judges again prohibited the use of Alabama’s map, opting instead for a special master’s race-neutral map. The judges argued this decision was necessary to prevent Alabamians from voting under a system “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”
Alabama’s appeal to the Supreme Court maintains that its 2023 map appropriately balances district retention with the need for demographic coherence, particularly in preserving the traditional Black Belt region. The state insists the map addresses any alleged racial discrimination and decries the lower court’s view that Alabama’s actions represented intentional discrimination. The state has asked the justices for an administrative stay or requested the case be heard in full later in the year, reflecting a deep-seated legal confrontation that appears far from resolution. More details on the ongoing case can be accessed through SCOTUSblog.