Alabama Victorious As SCOTUS Decides They Can Use 2023 Maps, Eliminating One Majority-Minority District
In a Tuesday night per curiam order, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the State of Alabama,
allowing them to proceed with using maps drawn in 2023 for the 2026
midterm elections. These maps included only one majority-minority
district.
In a lower court ruling, a three-judge panel ordered the state to
implement a second majority-minority district under the claim that the
2023 maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). On May 11, SCOTUS vacated that ruling
and sent it back to the lower court. On May 26, this same three-judge
panel once again blocked the use of 2023 maps on the same basis of
violation of the VRA, without any consideration of the decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which held that maps drawn along racial lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were no longer valid.
Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil
Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney-Barrett ruled in favor of the
state. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson
dissented.
In the order,
the court noted Alabama showed it was entitled to interim relief from
the district court’s injunction and that the state would have likely
succeeded with its appeals. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of
"intentional vote dilution," stating, "the District Court did not heed
the presumption of legislative good faith, see Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP,
602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024), because it interpreted the State’s legal
disagreement with the court’s earlier remedial order as proof of
discriminatory animus."
It was also concluded that the district court's analysis "departed from Callais,
and that Alabama "made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that
the equities and public interest favor it." Then they issued this slap
on the wrist to the district court:
We have repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not “alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
The
Alabama legislature had already scheduled an August 11 special election
to reconfigure the formerly two majority-minority districts to conform
to the Callais ruling. The actions by the district court would have prevented that election from occurring.
Weeks
ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these
cases would “unleash chaos and . . . confuse voters.” Caster, 608 U. S.,
at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 4). Nevertheless, the Court
forged ahead. Now the Court is squarely faced with a record of the
turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought. Yet just as Alabama
doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on
chaos.
After
receiving Alabama's emergency petition on May 27, Justice Clarence
Thomas, who oversees the Northern District of Alabama, requested the
plaintiffs respond by Monday, June 1. The plaintiffs did so and were
extremely adamant that SCOTUS reject the petition, claiming:
In a series of filings, the civil
rights groups and voters asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower
court’s ruling preventing the state from implementing a map that a
three-judge panel found to be intentionally discriminatory towards Black
Alabamians.
The plaintiffs urged the justices to keep the current
2024 congressional map in place, which includes two Black opportunity
districts.
“Entering a stay so that Alabama can at the last minute
replace a lawful plan with an unlawful and unconstitutional one would
create chaos and would reward Applicants for their repeated false
statements to this Court,” the plaintiffs wrote in one filing.
The
state quickly submitted its reply brief Monday, reiterating its support
for using the struck-down 2023 map in light of the recent Supreme Court
ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted much of the Voting Rights Act.
The
plaintiffs' reply was rebuffed. As stated in the SCOTUS order, it gave
the appearance of interference to prevent the August 11 special election
from moving forward, which was not within the court's powers.
Now that SCOTUS has ruled, Alabama can get to the work of reassigning voters to appropriate districts.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued this statement on SCOTUS' decision.
“Tonight’s decision is a major victory for Alabama and
for the principle of self-governance. The United States Supreme Court
confirmed what we always knew: that Alabama’s Congressional maps are
constitutional and lawful under the Voting Rights Act. The Court’s
decision to stay the district court’s injunction affirms that Alabama’s
elected representatives, not federal judges, have the primary authority
to draw the maps under which Alabamians choose their own leaders.
"The
Supreme Court rightly recognized that its recent decision in Louisiana
v. Callais fundamentally changes the legal landscape. The district
court’s brazen refusal to apply that controlling precedent left the
Court with no choice but to intervene and put a stop to the district
court’s attempts to override the will of the people. The Court also
acknowledged that a state enjoined from enforcing the laws passed by its
own legislature suffers real harm.
"For too long, Alabama has
been denied the full measure of its sovereignty by judges who insist on
treating our state as though it never moved beyond the 1960s. No more.
We have the same right as any other state to draw our own congressional
maps according to our own legitimate districting objectives, without
being held to a different and more burdensome standard by federal
courts.
"The High Court agreed that Alabamians should elect their
representatives under the map chosen through their democratic process.
And we will not allow unelected judges to repeatedly redraw our State’s
electoral maps in defiance of the Supreme Court’s own standards. We look
forward to full vindication on appeal and will continue to defend
Alabama’s right to conduct its own elections.”
No comments:
Post a Comment