Alabama Redistricting Rocks Dems
Alabama’s congressional map fight is once again headed toward a showdown at the Supreme Court after a federal district court panel blocked the state from using its 2023 congressional maps. The legal battle has become…
Alabama’s congressional map fight is once again headed toward a showdown at the Supreme Court after a federal district court panel blocked the state from using its 2023 congressional maps.
The legal battle has become increasingly convoluted, especially after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais appeared to shift the legal landscape surrounding race-based redistricting claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Back in early May, SCOTUS vacated the lower court’s earlier ruling against Alabama and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Callais. Many observers believed that signaled the district court would need to reassess whether Alabama’s 2023 maps were lawful under the Supreme Court’s updated framework.
Instead, the same three-judge district court panel effectively doubled down.
On Tuesday, the panel again blocked Alabama’s 2023 maps, arguing the state intentionally discriminated by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The judges also claimed they were attempting to avoid voter confusion ahead of upcoming elections.
Critics say the ruling accomplished the exact opposite.
Rather than applying the Supreme Court’s latest guidance, the district court largely relied on the same reasoning SCOTUS had already called into question. That immediately prompted Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
As expected, Alabama filed an emergency stay application on Wednesday asking SCOTUS to allow the state to proceed with the 2023 maps for upcoming elections.
Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre argued in the filing that the 2023 map directly addressed concerns previously raised by the Supreme Court while balancing race-neutral districting priorities and preserving existing communities of interest.
According to Bowdre, the state attempted to preserve both the Gulf Coast region and Alabama’s historic Black Belt “as little as possible” while still complying with earlier rulings.
More importantly, Alabama argued that the district court completely failed to seriously grapple with Callais.
“Callais vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan, yet the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing,” Bowdre wrote.
That criticism cuts to the heart of the dispute. Either district maps are being evaluated through race-neutral principles, or courts are effectively demanding race-conscious line drawing to satisfy Section 2 claims.
Bowdre further argued that the district court never required challengers to present alternative maps capable of satisfying Alabama’s political and geographic goals while still creating two majority-Black districts — something the Supreme Court strongly suggested should matter.
He also pointed out that creating another majority-minority district would require sacrificing other traditional districting principles, including preserving communities of interest and avoiding incumbent pairings.
The sharpest line in Alabama’s filing may have been Bowdre’s conclusion that the district court essentially found Alabama guilty of discrimination “by refusing to intentionally discriminate.”
In other words, Alabama argues the court is punishing the state for declining to engage in race-based gerrymandering.
Timing also remains a major issue.
The state warned that the district court’s ruling threatens to disrupt election administration just months before the August 11 special election. Alabama election officials had already scheduled work to begin reassigning voters under the 2023 map framework, with voter rolls expected to be unlocked only during a narrow window between May 27 and June 2.
That looming deadline became part of Alabama’s argument for emergency intervention.
Because Justice Clarence Thomas oversees the relevant federal circuit, the emergency application landed on his docket first. On Wednesday afternoon, Thomas declined to immediately restore the 2023 maps but ordered plaintiffs challenging the maps to respond by Monday, June 1.
What may ultimately strengthen Alabama’s case is the unusually forceful amicus brief filed by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer argued the district court fundamentally misapplied Callais and improperly ignored the Supreme Court’s instruction to disentangle race and politics when evaluating redistricting decisions.
According to the DOJ filing, the district court gave only “lip service” to the presumption that legislatures act in good faith and instead assumed Alabama’s refusal to create another majority-Black district automatically proved discriminatory intent.
Dhillon and Sauer argued that conclusion cannot be squared with Callais.
“The district court instead concluded that Alabama must have intended to discriminate because it declined to draw a second black opportunity district,” the filing stated.
The DOJ further argued Alabama was pursuing legitimate political and geographic goals, including preserving the Gulf Coast and maintaining continuity within the Black Belt region.
Critics of the district court say the ruling effectively orders Alabama to prioritize race above all other districting considerations, something the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against.
The DOJ filing also blasted the timing of the injunction, arguing the district court violated the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle, which generally discourages courts from changing election rules close to an election.
“Federal district courts do not have the same license to interfere with election rules at the eleventh hour,” the DOJ argued.
At this point, the case appears headed for yet another major Supreme Court intervention. The plaintiffs’ response is due Monday, and SCOTUS may soon decide whether Alabama can proceed with the 2023 maps while the broader legal fight continues.
Given the increasingly direct clash between the district court and the Supreme Court’s evolving redistricting jurisprudence, this latest battle could carry major implications well beyond Alabama.