A three-judge panel from a federal district court in Alabama ruled Tuesday a special master must step in and draw a new congressional map since the state Legislature defied the Supreme Court and refused to add a second majority Black district to its 2023 plan.
The panel from the Northern District of Alabama noted the high court in June upheld its earlier ruling against the GOP state lawmakers, reasoning a map that included only one majority Black district ran afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in June said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to make sure their voting processes are “equally open” to all by ensuring that minorities have at least the same opportunities as others.
The high court reasoned that Black voters’ power was illegally diluted when the map split them among several districts and left just one where they were the dominant political force. Alabama’s map violates the law under the court’s precedents for judging district lines, said the majority, siding with lower courts.
“We agree with the District Court, therefore, that plaintiffs’ illustrative maps ’strongly suggest[ed] that Black voters in Alabama’ could constitute a majority in a second, reasonably configured, district,” Chief Justice G. John Roberts Jr. wrote.
But the state Legislature, when given another chance at redrawing the map, did not add a second district.
The Republican-controlled Legislature redrew lines after the June decision, reaching again only one majority Black district out of seven. The state has 27% Black residents. The map passed in July boosted the number of Black voters in District 2 from 30% to 40%, according to The Associated Press.
The three-judge panel in its Tuesday decision said it was “deeply troubled” by the state’s decision and has decided to have a third party step in and take on the map-drawing role.
“We are three years into a 10-year redistricting cycle, and the Legislature has had ample opportunity to draw a lawful map,” the ruling read. “We do not take lightly federal intrusion into a process ordinarily reserved for the state Legislature. But we have now said twice that this Voting Rights Act case is not close. And we are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires.”
Voting rights activists cheered the decision.
The plaintiffs who challenged the map before the Supreme Court said in a joint statement that they would not back down.
“Sixty years ago, former Gov. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to stop Black people from desegregating the University of Alabama. He moved only when the federal government forced him to do so. History is repeating itself, and the district court’s decision confirms that Alabama is again on the losing side. We demand that Alabama again move out of the way and obey our laws — we demand our voting rights,” the statement read.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who leads the National Redistricting Foundation, said the judges’ decision is a “step toward equal representation for Black Alabamians.”
“The court rightly stepped up and applied the law in order to protect the rights of American citizens in the face of the state’s blatant attempt to diminish those rights in defiance of both this court and the Supreme Court of the United States. What happened in Alabama this summer underscores the necessity for the judiciary to continue to be unwavering in its obligations to enforce the critical protections of the Voting Rights Act in order for justice to ultimately prevail. Other states with pending Section 2 cases should take note and adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision,” he said.
Alabama, though, is expected to appeal the decision, according to The Associated Press.
Meanwhile, the Alabama GOP released a statement noting it was disappointed in the three-judge panel’s ruling.
“While we respect the court, we are disappointed in its decision, and we trust that the State will ultimately prevail in this litigation,” the Alabama Republican Party said.
• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.