Alabama redistricting: Democrats balk as Republicans defend newly redrawn map | #republicans | #Alabama | #GOP

A federal court in Alabama will soon decide whether a recently passed map by state Republican lawmakers will stand for the 2024 election, a legal fight that could ascend to the Supreme Court not long after the justices ruled against a previous map that lacked a second black-majority district.

Democrats and activist groups have vehemently pushed back over a new congressional map passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last month. Meanwhile, GOP defenders of the map say the high court did not explicitly require proportionality or a second black-majority district.

SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE: DIRECT PAYMENT WORTH UP TO $4,555 GOES OUT TO MILLIONS IN FIVE DAYS

Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) and members of the Congressional Black Caucus filed a brief on Thursday saying the “redistricting plan Alabama legislators approved on July 21, S.B. 5 (‘the Livingston Plan’), dilutes the voting strength of Black voters in Alabama and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (‘VRA’).”

Robert Fram, an attorney for Sewell and CBC members, stated that the proposal “renders impossible electoral victory for any Black-preferred candidate” and fails the constraints of the recent high court decision against the state’s 2021 map in Allen v. Milligan, a narrow 5-4 decision.

Conversely, the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the party’s redistricting arm, has said that the Supreme Court’s holding in Milligan “maintains an indecipherable status quo” that will require clarity sooner than later, according to a statement on June 8, the day of the ruling.

The new map’s provisions include changes to the 7th Congressional District, which would have a 51% black voting-age population if the district court approves of the map. The 2nd District also loses Autauga County, Conecuh County, and parts of Elmore and Covington counties but now includes Lowndes, Macon, and Russell counties. The black voting age population in the 2nd District would rise from 32% to roughly 40%.

Before arriving at the high court, the district court’s earlier opinion in that case stated that “any remedial plan will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” However, some legal experts noticed that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion notably excludes that quote and that Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent referenced it as a “thinly disguised benchmark.”

“In sum, the District Court’s thinly disguised benchmark was proportionality: Black Alabamians are about two-sevenths of the State’s population, so they should control two of the State’s seven congressional seats,” Thomas said of the lower court’s rationale.

Ilya Shapiro, a director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on July 31 saying the “media talking point is that the state is ‘defying’ the justices” is a “case of gaslighting.”

“It is also a remarkable act of projection, because the challengers to Alabama’s new map are asking a federal district court to defy the justices by ordering racially proportionate redistricting, which the Supreme Court rejected,” Shapiro said.

In a concurring opinion in the Milligan case by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he stated that Section 2 of the VRA would go against the Constitution if it required a districting map to reflect the state’s racial demographics. Chief Justice John Roberts was also in agreement, stating that Section 2 “never require[s] adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.”

Federal Judges Stanley Marcus, Anna Manasco, and Terry Moorer said in filing in federal court on Tuesday that a trial on the merits will not take place until after the hearing slated for Aug. 14. That three-judge panel will be tasked to decide if the newly enacted map passed by Republicans will stand for the upcoming 2024 election.

There is a tight time frame for debates over Alabama’s congressional map. State officials say the final map must be in place by early October to provide candidates with enough time to prepare for the primary elections in March.

If the three-judge panel rules the map must be redrawn again with a second majority-black district, a special master may be commissioned to revise the map and subsequently could better the odds that two Democrats will represent Alabama in the House. And if the district court does reject the new GOP-drawn map, that could also prompt an emergency appeal back up to the Supreme Court.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel specializing in election law, told the Washington Examiner he believes this case is ripe for Alabama Republicans to seek another shot at the high court:

“Alabama is in an interesting position and is clearly on a path to take another run at a U.S. Supreme Court argument.”