Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Republicans’ Attempt to Use Congressional Map with Only One Majority-Black District

In a blow to Alabama Republicans, the Supreme Court rejected their request to use a congressional map that includes only one majority-Black district. This is the second defeat for Alabama Republicans in three months. The court refused emergency requests from Republican state officials to block lower court rulings that invalidated the new map. The lower court proceedings to approve a new map are still ongoing.

This decision is aligned with the Supreme Court’s ruling in June against the state, which reaffirmed a crucial provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. The court did not explain its reasoning, and there were no dissenting votes.

How AI legalese decoder Can Help

AI legalese decoder can assist in this situation by providing an efficient and accurate analysis of the complex legal language used in court rulings and the Voting Rights Act. It can simplify and translate legal documents and rulings into plain language, making it easier for both legal professionals and the general public to understand the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

By utilizing AI legalese decoder, lawyers and advocates challenging the maps can more effectively argue their case and highlight how Alabama’s electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes. The tool can also help educate the public about the importance of providing equal political opportunities to Black citizens in Alabama.

The Supreme Court’s previous ruling sent the state back to the drawing board, but the new map ÔÇö like its predecessor ÔÇö only includes one district where Black voters are likely to have the power to elect a candidate of their choosing. With Alabama’s population being 27% Black, the decision for a second majority-Black district is essential.

However, the new map was rejected by two separate lower court rulings, which stated that an additional majority-Black district is necessary, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s June ruling.

Abha Khanna, a lawyer involved in challenging the maps, remarked, “Alabama’s open defiance of the Voting Rights Act stops today.” She expressed hope that this decision would encourage Alabama to reconsider their resistance to providing equal political opportunities to Black Alabamians.

Having a new map with a second majority-Black district could potentially benefit Democrats in their campaign to gain control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming election. Black residents of Alabama are more likely to vote Democratic. Currently, there are six Republicans and one Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation.

The two consolidated cases originated from litigation over the congressional district map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature after the 2020 census. The challengers, including individual voters and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by discriminatory practices against Black voters.

Lower court judges have consistently ruled that under the existing law, the challengers have demonstrated that Alabama’s Black population is both large enough and sufficiently concentrated to warrant a second majority-Black district. The Supreme Court ruling in June had Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Kavanaugh, however, noted in a separate opinion that his vote does not preclude future challenges to Section 2. He suggested that there may come a time when considering race in redistricting, as authorized by the 1965 law, is no longer deemed justified.

In their request to block the lower court rulings, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall highlighted Justice Kavanaugh’s pronouncements and also referenced the court’s decision in June to end the consideration of race in college admissions as an example of historical race discrimination remedies that may no longer be appropriate.

The challengers’ lawyers argued that the state made no effort to draw a second majority-Black district, despite it being the only remedy permitted by existing law. They firmly stated, “The state is not entitled… to implement a congressional map that openly defies the clear rulings of the district court and this court.”