Court strikes down Alabama congressional map in scathing opinion

A three-judge panel struck down Alabama’s new congressional map Tuesday, finding the GOP-led state fell short of complying with the Supreme Court’s recent directive.

The ruling paves the way for a court-appointed official to instead draw the lines for the 2024 election cycle, though Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s (R) office said it plans to appeal the case back to the Supreme Court.

“And we are struck by the extraordinary circumstance we face,” the federal judges wrote in a 196-page opinion.

“We are not aware of any other case 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,” they continued.

The ruling orders a court-appointed special master to submit three new maps by Sept. 25 that fix the dilution of Black voters in the state. It could provide a boost to Democrats as they attempt to retake the House in 2024.

Alabama had submitted the new map after the Supreme Court in June blocked the state’s previous iteration in a 5-4 decision for likely violating the Voting Rights Act. Alabama’s map included one majority-Black district out of the state’s seven total districts, despite 27 percent of the state’s population being Black.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed a lower ruling that mandated the state draw new lines that “will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.”

But the Republican-led legislature then refused to draw a second majority-Black district.

It instead maintained Alabama’s one majority-Black district — which is represented by the state’s lone congressional Democrat — and only increased the percentage of Black voters in the 2nd Congressional District from 30 percent to 40 percent.

“We discern no basis in federal law to accept a map the State admits falls short of this required remedy,” the judges wrote. 

The panel comprised one Clinton appointee, Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, and two Trump appointees, District Judge Anna Manasco and District Judge Terry Moorer.

“While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we strongly believe that the Legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” Marshall’s office said in a statement. “We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the State can use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond.”

State officials previously indicated the boundaries need to be finalized by about Oct. 1, so it can be in place for next year’s primary. 

After the court-appointed official submits its three maps, the state or other parties will have three days to object. A hearing would then be held Oct. 3, if necessary.

“[W]e have no reason to believe that allowing the Legislature still another opportunity to draw yet another map will yield a map that includes an additional opportunity district,” the judges wrote. “Moreover, counsel for the State has informed the Court that, even if the Court were to grant the Legislature yet another opportunity to draw a map, it would be practically impossible for the Legislature to reconvene and do so in advance of the 2024 election cycle.

One group of plaintiffs — individual voters and voting rights advocates — in a joint statement said Alabama “openly admits its intention” to defy the Supreme Court and the law.

“Sixty years ago, former Governor George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to stop Black people from desegregating the University of Alabama,” they said. “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.”

Updated at 1:47 p.m.