The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Alabama Republicans’ second bid to use a congressional map that includes one majority-black congressional district.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from Alabama Republicans to use a congressional map that includes one majority-black congressional district.
Tuesday’s one-line court’s decision leaves intact a Sept. 5 decision by a federal three-judge panel in Birmingham, Alabama, which said the map approved by the state’s Republican-led legislature to set the boundaries of Alabama’s seven House of Representatives districts was unlawfully biased against black voters and must be redrawn.
The new map was thrown out in two different lower court rulings earlier this year, with judges saying an additional minority-black district was required, in line with the Supreme Court’s June ruling.
“We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” wrote the three-judge panel in Birmingham. That came before it reached the Supreme Court for a second time.
The judges added that it is “not aware of any other case in which a state legislature … responded with a plan that the state concedes does not provide that district.”
A special master now has to be appointed to come up with a “remedial map to ensure that a plan can be implemented as part of an orderly process in advance of elections, where the State was given an opportunity to enact a compliant map but failed to do so,” the judges wrote (pdf).
That prompted a statement from Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who said earlier this month that his state would appeal the order.
The Republican attorney general’s office said on Sept. 5 that “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. 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.”
After the Supreme Court’s rejection on Tuesday, Mr. Marshall has not yet issued a public comment.
