Alabama Congressional Maps Go on Trial
Trial begins Monday in a years-long redistricting battle that will determine Black representation in Alabama’s congressional delegation through 2030.
The case already delivered a significant win for voters in 2023 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which has been described as the “single most important tool for voters in states to defend against racial vote dilution.”
A three-judge panel in the Northern District of Alabama is now set to decide whether Alabama violated Section 2 when it drew a map with only one majority-Black district, despite a court order requiring two districts where Black Alabamians had an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.
The case began in November 2021, when two groups of voters and non-profits filed lawsuits against then-Secretary of State John Merrill and the co-chairs of the Legislative Committee on Reapportionment challenging the congressional map drawn by legislators after the 2020 census. They alleged the 2021 map diluted the voting strength of Black Alabamians by packing some into district 7, which contains parts of the Birmingham and Montgomery metropolitan areas, and cracking the rest among majority-white districts. The two lawsuits were later consolidated.
According to the plaintiffs, the legislature rejected requests to test whether the map satisfactorily distributed Black voters in accordance with the VRA. It is unconstitutional to use race as the predominant factor in redistricting except under very narrow circumstances to comply with the VRA. Although Black Alabamians make up 27% of the state’s voting age population, they have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in only 14% of congressional districts (or one out of seven).
“The Legislature enacted this plan even though it could have more naturally drawn a second majority-Black Congressional District that complies with traditional redistricting principles, like maintaining whole counties, and respects the contiguity and communities of actual interest in the Black Belt counties,” the complaint reads.
In January 2022, a federal court ordered Alabama to stop using the 2021 map and to draw a new map that included two districts where Black voters could have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The defendants appealed and the Supreme Court paused the order, allowing the 2021 map to be used during the 2022 midterm elections.
But in June 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the decision blocking the 2021 map and determined that plaintiffs “demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the claim” that the map violated Section 2.
Alabama at this point enacted a new map to resolve the likely Section 2 violation of the 2021 map. However, the map they adopted in July 2023 still had only one majority-Black district.
Days after the 2023 map passed, plaintiffs challenged it on the basis that it failed to provide two districts where a Black-preferred candidate has a meaningful chance of being elected, as the court ordered. In September 2023, the federal court temporarily halted the use of the 2023 map and ordered a special master and cartographer to draw a new map for the 2024 election. Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court once again to pause the decision, but was denied.
The remedial plan created two districts where Black Alabamians could have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. In 2024, the second majority-Black district elected Rep. Shomari Figures (D), making it the first time Alabama sent two Black representatives to Congress.
Plaintiffs are now urging the court to permanently block the 2023 map and order the remedial plan to be used for all future elections through 2030.
“This case isn’t just about a congressional map,” Marina Jenkins, Executive Director of the National Redistricting Foundation, told reporters Thursday. “It’s about representation and living up to the fundamental ideal that should guide our democracy: that every individual has the right to exercise self determination at the ballot box. If we value equal representation and fairness, we must fight to keep this map in place.”
In February 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint, arguing private parties cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2. Rather, they assert that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2. Additionally, defendants argue that plaintiffs need to show they are excluded from participating in the political process in addition to having an unequal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Since Black Alabamians can register to vote, participate in political parties and vote, defendants argue they have equal access to the political process and therefore cannot bring a Section 2 claim.
Plaintiffs pushed back, saying Supreme Court precedent does not and has never required a minority group to prove they are excluded from effective participation in political life. The Supreme Court instead uses the long-established Gingles factors to determine whether a map dilutes voting power for minority groups.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration also weighed in on the enforcement of Section 2 in March 2024. It defended the rights of private plaintiffs to bring Section 2 claims, writing, “The structure of the Act, Supreme Court precedent, and congressional ratification make clear that Section 2 can be enforced by private plaintiffs.” The new Trump DOJ has not indicated that they will change their position on this issue.
After a denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the case heads to trial where they will continue to argue that Section 2 cases can only be brought by the attorney general. Defendants will also allege that plaintiffs must prove intentional discrimination to assert a Section 2 violation and that Section 2 is unconstitutional for requiring Alabama to draw a second district based on race.
The three-judge panel who will be hearing the trial is made up of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.