Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Alabama officials to seek reinstatement of a congressional map previously ruled racially discriminatory, injecting new uncertainty into the state’s elections just days before primary voting is set to begin.
The high court overturned a 2023 ruling blocking Alabama’s Republican-backed congressional map and returned the case to a lower federal court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The unsigned order came less than a week before Alabama’s May 19 primaries and follows the court’s April ruling requiring plaintiffs challenging congressional maps under Section 2 to prove intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory effects alone.
The Supreme Court majority did not provide an explanation for Monday’s order, as is customary in emergency decisions.
The legal battle stems from congressional maps approved by the Alabama Legislature after the 2020 Census. Civil rights groups and Black voters challenged the maps, arguing they diluted Black voting strength by failing to create a second district where Black voters could elect candidates of their choice.
A three-judge federal panel ruled in 2022 that Alabama’s map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it packed many Black voters into a single district while limiting their influence elsewhere.
The Supreme Court initially paused that ruling ahead of the 2022 midterm elections but later upheld the lower court’s decision in the landmark case Allen v. Milligan in 2023.
After lawmakers approved a revised congressional map later that year, federal judges again concluded the plan unlawfully diluted Black voting power. The court then appointed a special master to draw a remedial map currently in use.
Under that court-ordered map, the 2nd Congressional District — represented by Shomari Figures — has a Black Voting Age Population of roughly 49%, while the 7th Congressional District, represented by Terri Sewell, has a BVAP of about 52%.
Monday’s action reflects the sweeping implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which raised the legal standard for challenging voting maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Under the new framework, plaintiffs must demonstrate intentional discrimination — a substantially higher threshold than the prior standard focused on discriminatory impact.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from Monday’s order, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“In addition to holding that Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan violates Section 2, the district court held … that Alabama violated the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters in Alabama,” Sotomayor wrote. “That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais.”
Sotomayor also noted that the Supreme Court previously said Allen v. Milligan remained “good law,” arguing that Alabama’s handling of the case reflected evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiffs in the case argued Monday that the lower court’s injunction should remain in place because the current remedial map was drawn without considering race.
“The district court’s remedial plan is proof positive: it does not contain a second majority-Black district, and it was ‘prepared race-blind,’” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings.
If Alabama’s 2023 legislative map is reinstated, the Black Voting Age Population in the 2nd District would fall below 40%, potentially jeopardizing Figures’ reelection prospects.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall celebrated the ruling, arguing federal courts had improperly interfered with the state’s authority to draw congressional districts.
“For too long, unelected federal judges had more say over Alabama’s elections than Alabama’s voters,” Marshall said in a video posted to social media. “My job in this office was to put the Legislature in the best possible legal position to draw a congressional map that favors Republicans 7-0.”
Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen called the decision a “historic win” for the state and said the May 19 primary would proceed as scheduled.
State Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger said the ruling restored the Legislature’s authority over elections and removed what he described as judicial interference.
A spokesperson for Kay Ivey did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.
Civil rights advocates sharply criticized the ruling, warning it could weaken protections for minority voters nationwide.
“The Court’s decision interferes with the ongoing election and puts the validity of the votes of thousands of early voters into doubt,” said Deuel Ross, litigation director for the Legal Defense Fund, which represented plaintiffs in the case.
Dev Wakeley, a worker policy advocate with Alabama Arise, said the Supreme Court had “severely, and systematically, disadvantages Black voters.”
Kim Bailey called the decision “deeply disappointing” and warned it could create confusion ahead of the elections.
Figures described the ruling as “an incredibly unfortunate decision” and accused the court’s conservative majority of acting as “defense lawyers for the state of Alabama.”
Sewell called the ruling “a stunning reversal” but vowed the legal fight would continue.
“Black voters make up nearly one-third of Alabama’s electorate and we deserve no less than two seats where we can select the candidate of our choice,” Sewell said.
The ruling marks another major shift in the Supreme Court’s voting rights jurisprudence and could reshape redistricting litigation nationwide.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has long served as one of the primary legal tools used to challenge racial discrimination in election maps, particularly after the Supreme Court weakened other parts of the landmark law in earlier rulings over the past decade.
Republicans currently control every statewide elected office in Alabama, both U.S. Senate seats, five of the state’s seven congressional districts, and commanding majorities in the Legislature.
The Alabama Legislature last week approved bills authorizing new primaries if district boundaries change again before the general election. The legislation passed after a contentious special session that drew protests at the statehouse.
Opponents argue those laws themselves could face constitutional challenges because a 2022 amendment generally prohibits election law changes within six months of an election. Republicans have argued the restriction applies only to general elections, not primaries.
The case now returns to the three-judge federal panel that originally blocked Alabama’s map. The lower court must reconsider its earlier findings under the Supreme Court’s revised Section 2 standard established in Louisiana v. Callais.
It remains unclear whether Alabama’s elections will ultimately proceed under the court-ordered map or the Legislature’s preferred boundaries.
Any further changes could prompt additional litigation as election officials race to finalize procedures ahead of the primary and general elections.
