Alabama seeks Supreme Court intervention to stop lower court ruling on GOP-drawn voting map.
Alabama is taking its battle to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to temporarily halt a lower court’s decision that blocks the state’s recently redrawn congressional map. The state argues that it should not be required to create a second majority-black voting district, as it believes this would lead to a racially segregated court-drawn plan.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama needed to redraw its congressional districting map to ensure that black voters had the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
However, the map passed by the state Legislature in July only included one majority-black district out of seven, despite the fact that 27 percent of the state’s population is black.
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found that state lawmakers had failed to follow a previous court order to adhere to the federal Voting Rights Act when creating the new districting map in July.
The three-judge panel rejected the state’s argument that adding a second black-majority district would constitute unconstitutional affirmative action in redistricting.
The panel consisted of Judge Stanley Marcus of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, both appointed by President Donald Trump.
Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen has submitted a plea to Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles urgent matters from that jurisdiction, requesting the Supreme Court to suspend the lower court’s ruling by Oct. 1.
Alabama argues that the lower court’s ruling would result in a racially segregated court-drawn plan that divides communities of interest, contradicting the state’s redistricting principles.
In the plea to the high court, Mr. Allen seeks to prevent the lower court’s ruling from taking effect while the appeal process unfolds. In specific voting rights cases, the state can directly appeal to the Supreme Court.
Federal Court Rejects Request for Stay
Earlier on Monday, the same three-judge panel refused to grant Mr. Allen’s request for a stay regarding a ruling that mandated the appointment of a special master to create three potential congressional maps later in the month. This decision stemmed from an earlier determination that Alabama’s initial redistricting proposals were likely to diminish the voting influence of black residents.
“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,” the judges wrote (pdf).
As a result of the state Legislature’s failure to comply, a court-appointed special master will now draw Alabama’s congressional map for the 2024 election cycle.
The three-judge panel concluded that there was no genuine “emergency” as asserted by Mr. Allen.
The judges found that Mr. Allen had not demonstrated Alabama’s likelihood of success based on the merits of the case during the appeal process concerning the special master’s decision.
“We have said before that ‘this is a straightforward Section Two case, not a legal unicorn,’” they wrote. “This case remains straightforward. We are aware, however, of no other case—and the Secretary does not direct us to one—in which a state legislature, faced with a federal court order declaring that its electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes and requiring a plan that provides an additional opportunity district, responded with a plan that the state concedes does not provide that district. Likewise, it is exceptionally unusual for a litigant who has presented his argum
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...