Judges issue remedy in Alabama redistricting case

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WIAT) — Judges said in a ruling that Alabama will have to wait until 2030 to change how congressional districts are drawn in the state.

This comes after the court found in May that a map drawn by lawmakers in 2023 violated the Voting Rights Act. States across the nation are trying to redraw their own maps, effectively changing representation at the federal level.

Data from the 2030 census must be used to create Alabama’s next congressional map. Until then, the state must use the current map, that includes two opportunity districts. While the state has already filed a notice of appeal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said this is a major gain for black voters.

“It’s unfortunate that we still need to resort to litigation,” said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “There are some things that have definitely changed and improved since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. But this really shows there is still a need for it.”

In a statement, the Alabama Attorney General’s office said “we are pleased that the court accepted our arguments and rejected the plaintiffs’ far-reaching request.” That request would have required lawmakers to have their new map approved by the court in 2030, also known as preclearance. Rosborough said their request was not far reaching. “I would say it’s actually the conduct of the legislature that is sort of, exceptional, and far reaching, and that prompted us to make that request,” he said.

Former Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill said he was disappointed with the original ruling. “We’ll be able to see some additional population shifts,” he said. “Which, may result in the loss of that seat. It may go back to six Republicans and one Democrat. Or, it may stay the way that it is today.”

Merrill and Rosborough said the Alabama ruling sends a message to other states, like Texas, that are redrawing their own congressional districts. “Reapportionment should not be done for political purposes,” said Merrill. “It should be done for representational purposes. I think that’s one of the things that led up to the defeat for Alabama when we moved originally.”

“This order provides some additional insurance against this sort of conduct that’s happening in some other places,” said Rosborough.

Rosborough explained that Alabama has already filed a notice of appeal, and will submit a briefing next month on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the full case again.