Alabama asked the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27 to allow the state to use a congressional map that removed one of two black-majority districts.
Of the state’s seven congressional districts, five are currently held by Republicans, while two are held by Democrats.
Attorneys for black voters had argued that the new map—which would give Republicans a 6–1 advantage over Democrats—discriminated against black voters.
The panel’s ruling held that the newest redistricting plan was “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”
The state argues that there is a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will reverse the panel’s finding of “intentional discrimination.”
The panel’s decision comes out of a long-running dispute over how congressional district lines are drawn in Alabama.
After the 2020 U.S. Census, the Republican-controlled legislature drew a map that contained one majority-black district.
Black voters and activist groups sued, citing Section 2 nondiscrimination provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act, arguing that the map diluted minority voting power. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Allen v. Milligan (2023) that the map violated the act and held that the state must create a second black-majority district.
However, in April, the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais narrowed how Section 2 can be used to contest maps. The high court ruled that race may only be a minor factor in redistricting rationales, not the predominant, overriding reason for how congressional districts are drawn.
The Alabama Legislature then redrew the congressional map so it gave Republicans a 6–1 advantage over Democrats.
The Legislature said that map “doubled down on racially discriminatory vote dilution after we and the Supreme Court found that it was racially discriminatory vote dilution.”
It is clear that the Legislature did not have “party politics in mind,” and the only evidence as to intent “tells us that considerations of race were the key reason,” the panel said.
The Supreme Court has held that gerrymandering, or the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular party or constituency, passes constitutional muster when it is done to boost partisan fortunes.
“We do not lightly intrude in state affairs, but our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution. Our re-examination in light of Callais yields the same conclusion,” the panel said.
The panel said the legislature knew that approving a plan without an additional black-majority district “would dilute Black Alabamians’ opportunity to participate in the political process, and it intentionally enacted that very plan.”
After the Callais decision, Alabama went forward with its May 19 primary elections, but postponed four of the congressional races, which are expected to be decided in a special election on Aug. 11.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said May 26 he would “immediately appeal” the panel’s decision to the Supreme Court.
“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades,” Marshall said in a statement at the time.