Federal Court Rejects Latest Alabama Congressional Map
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A federal court today rejected Alabama’s new congressional map due to its failure to remedy the violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, ordering a special master redraw the map to include two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
In June, following a legal challenge in Allen v. Milligan, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that struck down Alabama’s 2021 map and required a new map that no longer illegally dilutes the power of Black voters in Alabama. The initial map denied Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in all but one of seven districts — even though Black voters make up 27 percent of the voting-age population.
The Alabama Legislature convened in July and created a new map that is also discriminatory and fails to comply with the Voting Rights Act, prompting plaintiffs to continue their challenge.
Plaintiffs Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb.
They were back in court on Aug. 14 for a hearing challenging the Legislature’s 2023 proposed map. While today’s ruling is a promising step in the fight for a fair map, the Legislature’s outright defiance at the hearing indicates that it is far from over. The three-judge panel called out the Legislature for defying its order, assigning to a special master the task of drawing a remedial map that adds a second opportunity district to give Black voters the representation they deserve.
The following reactions are from:
Allen v. Milligan plaintiffs’ joint statement: “Our nation’s highest court required Alabama to draw a map to fairly represent Black voters — yet the state refused. Alabama openly admits its intention to defy the law and the U.S. Supreme Court. But we will not back down. Sixty years ago, former Governor George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to stop Black people from desegregating the University of Alabama. He moved only when the federal government forced him to do so. History is repeating itself and the district court’s decision confirms that Alabama is again on the losing side. We demand that Alabama again move out of the way and obey our laws — we demand our voting rights.”
Davin Rosborough, senior staff attorney, ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: “We are gratified the court has seen through Alabama’s gamesmanship and once again rejected a congressional map that discriminates against Black voters.”
JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, ACLU of Alabama executive director: “Twice, Alabama lawmakers have been asked to draw fair congressional districts that give Black Alabamians the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. And twice, a panel of federal judges have found that Alabama lawmakers failed to do so. Elected officials ignored their responsibilities and chose to violate our democracy. We hope the court's special master helps steward a process that ensures a fair map that Black Alabamians and our state deserve.”
LDF senior counsel Deuel Ross: “Once again, Alabama has openly defied our laws in order to disenfranchise Black voters. Thankfully, the district court has rejected Alabama’s defiance. The court has once again confirmed that Black voters deserve two opportunity districts. We look forward to ensuring that the special master draws a map that provides Black voters with the full representation in Congress that they deserve.”
Ruling: /documents/order-milligan-v-allen-9-5-2023
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.”