District Court Orders Alabama to Adopt New Congressional Map with Two Black Opportunity Districts
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A district court in Alabama today ordered the state to adopt a congressional map that includes two districts where Black voters will have the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.
This map remedies Alabama’s previous map, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was discriminatory in Allen v. Milligan. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state’s attempt to defy orders to draw a fair congressional map and allowed the three-judge district court to move forward with adopting a new map. In that ruling, a special master was assigned to draw a remedial map that includes a second “opportunity district” to ensure that Black Alabamians have fair representation in Congress.
Plaintiffs from the case released the following joint comment: “Today’s order marks a momentous step forward for us. Thousands of Black voters throughout the Black Belt, for the first time, will be able to elect their candidates of choice in two opportunity districts. This is an unequivocal win that will translate to increased opportunities for those who have too long been denied the fair representation they deserve. Though a long, hard-fought battle, we are grateful to have achieved this key measure and look forward to building a better future for Alabama voters.”
Following our legal challenge, the Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan affirmed the trial court’s ruling striking down Alabama’s 2021 map for illegally diluting the power of Black Alabamians in violation of the Voting Rights Act and requiring a new map.
The initial 2021 map denied Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in all but one of Alabama’s seven congressional districts — even though Black voters make up 27 percent of the state’s voting-age population. The new map will add a second district.
Plaintiffs Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb.
Ruling: /documents/alabama-redistricting-order-10-5-2023
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”