The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on Tuesday night that Alabama may use a congressional map drawn in 2023 for this year’s elections, reversing a lower federal court’s decision that the plan unlawfully diluted the voting power of black residents.
This ruling reduces the number of majority-black congressional districts in the state from two to one and is widely expected to give Republicans one additional House seat in the upcoming midterm elections.
As a result, Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, is now widely viewed as a likely Republican pickup.
The ruling can be viewed here.
The SCOTUS blog reported:
In a four-page, unsigned order, the court held that that “the District Court’s analysis departed from” the Supreme Court’s April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, in which the court (among other things) made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on a claim that a map violates a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
The majority opinion stated, “States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent that was joined by her fellow liberal justices, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson:
Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote and with which all voters, elections officials, and candidates alike are familiar.Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians, that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months.The majority chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.
On May 26, the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, temporarily blocked the new map, claiming that it “intentionally discriminated based on race.” The three-judge panel issued a preliminary injunction against the state’s new congressional map.
Mary covered this story here and here. She wrote that following the Supreme Court’s April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which concluded that Louisiana’s redistricting map was an “unconstitutional gerrymander” and that “race cannot be used as a factor in drawing a congressional district,” Alabama took their case to the Court.
Mary reported that in early May, “the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court “for consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais.”
“Did the court listen?” she asked rhetorically. “Nope.”
Despite the Supreme Court’s instruction to reconsider the case in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision, the district court maintained that Alabama was required to draw two majority-black congressional districts.
The lower court judges concluded, “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”
In Tuesday night’s majority opinion, the justices noted that the lower court had “failed to follow our instruction.”
Democrats, naturally, are incensed by the Supreme Court’s ruling because it likely puts the GOP one seat closer to holding onto the House majority in November.
NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke issued a statement torching the decision. She wrote:
The Supreme Court continues to unleash chaos in our democratic process, and with this latest action, gives Alabama approval to use a congressional map that had previously been found to be intentionally discriminatory.This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame. Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY