Dorothy

Alabama officials had pointed to the Louisiana case as reason for the Supreme Court to end a judicial order to use a court-imposed House map until after the 2030 census. The high court overturned that order and directed a lower court to reconsider the case in light of the Louisiana decision. That could free the state to instead use a map approved in 2023 by the Republican-led legislature that includes only one district where Black residents comprise a majority.

Alabama officials had pointed to the Louisiana case as reason for the Supreme Court to end a judicial order to use a court-imposed House map until after the 2030 census. The high court overturned that order and directed a lower court to reconsider the case in light of the Louisiana decision. That could free the state to instead use a map approved in 2023 by the Republican-led legislature that includes only one district where Black residents comprise a majority.

Before the Supreme Court decision last week, Alabama had been required to maintain one majority-black district and a second with a near-majority black population under an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that has now been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After the ruling, Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, said the state would move quickly to ensure its maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”

After the court ruled Louisiana’s map improperly weighted racial factors, Alabama lawmakers moved quickly to advance a redistricting plan aimed at triggering a fresh legal review. That effort paid off late Monday when the Supreme Court overturned a 2023 order from "Allen v. Milligan" that created a second Black-population-conscious district, which flipped Democratic in 2024, and returned the case to a federal court in Birmingham.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday removed an obstacle to Alabama’s using a new congressional map in this year’s election that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts.

Supreme Court lifts block on Alabama Republicans’ map The Supreme Court on Monday wiped out a decision blocking Alabama Republicans’ congressional map, potentially allowing it to be used for the midterms in the wake of the justices’ recent blockbuster ruling narrowing the Voting Rights Act. The design would remove one of Alabama’s two majority-Black districts and give Republicans a better shot at winning the seat held by Democratic…

Supreme Court Clears Path for Alabama to Use New Voting Map A majority of the justices sided with Alabama in a move that could speed up efforts to put in place a congressional district map that would eliminate a majority-Black district.

Alabama had argued that the court's recent decision weakening Voting Rights Act protections for minorities meant it should not have to use a map that included a second majority-Black district to comply with the civil rights law.

Alabama can use a congressional map a lower court had previously said was intentionally drawn to discriminate against Black voters in the state, the US supreme court ruled on Monday.

Alabama's elections just got more complicated. The state is moving ahead with a special primary election for four of its seven congressional districts, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to use a map that had been blocked by the courts.

The Supreme Court on Monday erased a lower court ruling that had stood in the way of Alabama redrawing its congressional lines, giving another boost to Republicans eager to ditch seats that have long been safe Democratic districts.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices vacated a lower-court order requiring Alabama’s congressional map to include two majority-black voting districts. The seats are held by Democratic Reps. Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures.

In a 6-3 order, the high court vacated a series of lower court rulings that effectively resulted in the state’s use of a congressional map that includes two majority-minority districts. As The Federalist reported, such affirmative action districts were historically carved out under past interpretations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to Democrats’ benefit.