Three weeks ago, a federal court struck down the redistricting plan proposed by the Alabama Redistricting Committee. This closely followed a similar plan that was appealed to the United States Supreme Court just last year.
The most recent case was dismissed at the federal level on the grounds that the district plan violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which intended to lessen the power of states to maintain discriminatory voting practices, usually based on race.
The plan only included a single majority Black district within the state, which disproportionally represented the 27% of Black Alabama citizens. The federal court that heard the case ordered Alabama to redraw the districts to include two majority Black districts.
In addition to ordering Alabama to redraw the district lines once more, the federal court also required the new plan to be drawn up by a third party. Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter released a statement following the decision.
“It’s frustrating that the court chooses to legislate when the Alabama Legislature knows our citizens, hometowns, and communities better than any federal judge,” Ledbetter said.
This is not Alabama’s first attempt to get a racially biased redistricting plan passed in recent years. The new plan was actually made in response to a USSC decision about Allen v. Milligan earlier this year. In June, the USSC affirmed a lower court verdict that labeled the Milligan plan as discriminatory, which also included only one majority Black district.
According to the lawyer who brought the suit in Allen v. Milligan Abha Khanna, only having one majority Black district is more important than most people realize.
“And the reason why it’s important in places like Alabama is because of a phenomenon we see called racially polarized voting,” Khanna said.
Racially polarized voting is when Black and white voters are voting in such opposite ways that the white majority will always override the Black vote.
In a joint statement released by the plaintiffs from Allen v. Milligan, they argued that Alabama’s refusal to comply is a defiance of federal law.
“Our nation’s highest court required Alabama to draw a map to fairly represent Black voters – yet the state has refused,” the plaintiffs said. “Alabama openly admits its intention to defy the law and the U.S. Supreme Court.”.
The significance of both of these cases involving redistricting revolves around the continued support for minority voters at the federal level. Khanna was well aware of the importance of the work she was doing.
“I think it's a message to states that the federal government are not backing down when it comes to enforcing the Voting Rights Act," Khanna said.
As gerrymandering and race-based discriminatory policy continues to be an issue, it is important to know and understand the effects of cases happening in real-time. Alabama is not the only state struggling to abide by these laws, with Khanna citing pending litigation in Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
Carrington Romanick is a junior from Helena, Alabama majoring in law and justice. She joined The Plainsman in August 2023.
