Alabama redistricting: Federal appeals court approves Alabama’s racially gerrymandered state legislative maps

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has cleared the way for Alabama to use a legislative district map that was found to be in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Alabama was seeking to revive that map after the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callias decision, which severely weakened the Voting Rights Act and gave states wider latitude to create districts that dilute minority votes, so long as they feigned partisan purposes. 

In a 2-1 split, judges appointed by President Donald Trump ruled in favor of Alabama using that racially discriminatory map for this year’s state senate races, despite the fact that voters have already cast ballots in a primary held earlier this month. 

“Alabama seeks a stay in part on the theory that it can, or will, undo those election results and hold a new primary election,” reads the dissent from Judge Nancy Abudu. “That request, which may generate widespread confusion, warrants careful consideration, and the Supreme Court has cautioned federal courts to tread carefully when elections already are underway.”

The map, originally created in 2021, drew just one majority-Black senate district in Montgomery, Alabama. This was blocked in 2025 by a federal court on grounds that it intentionally split and diluted the votes of Black voters in Montgomery in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also ordered the state to draw a new map to remedy this problem.

But after Alabama sought to revive the 2021 legislative map this month, the plaintiffs – Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP – argued that the map shouldn’t be used because evidence of  intentional discrimination remains.

“Because the district court’s findings of fact still support a showing of intentional racial discrimination, and because the court correctly determined that the remedial plan was not created with race as a predominant factor (as opposed to the State’s previously adopted plan), the State is not entitled to a stay,” reads the dissent. 

The plaintiffs also invoked the Purcell principle, which states that courts shouldn’t allow for map changes such as this so close to an election – in this case, after an election already happened – because of the confusion it will cause. 

However, the court’s majority rejected that reasoning noting that the Supreme Court disregarded such timing in recent decisions regarding both Louisiana and Alabama – the latter, for a separate case concerning its congressional districts. 

“Correcting an erroneous lower court injunction of a state election rule cannot itself constitute a Purcell problem,” reads the majority’s ruling. “The Supreme Court has vacated similar district court injunctions in recent weeks and was not deterred by Purcell considerations.”