In Win for Black Voters, Supreme Court Rejects Alabama’s Appeal in Milligan and Reaffirms State Must Draw Second Opportunity District
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today Alabama’s attempt to defy its orders to draw a fair congressional map and has allowed a three-judge panel’s to stand. Earlier this month, the lower court had rejected the legislature’s new 2023 map because it defied previous orders — and the Supreme Court’s in June — by failing to draw a second district in which Black voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.
Plaintiffs from the case released the following joint comment:
“It has been a long and frustrating battle holding the Alabama Legislature accountable, but today it is a rewarding one. Even after the highest court in the land sided with Black voters in June, our elected officials still chose power over people by outright defying multiple court orders, and the loud cries of their constituents to do the right thing. Despite these shameful efforts, the Supreme Court has once again agreed that Black Alabamians deserve a second opportunity district.
“This additional representation in Congress will undoubtedly change lives, especially for the hundreds of thousands of Alabamians residing in the Black Belt who suffer from lack of healthcare access, job opportunities, and crumbling infrastructure. We look forward to a new era in our state’s history, in which power is shared and Black voices are heard.”
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 Alabama Legislature convened in July and created a second map that still fails to include a second opportunity district or otherwise comply with the Voting Rights Act, prompting plaintiffs to continue their challenge. Earlier this month, the three-judge panel also blocked the 2023 map, and assigned a special master to draw a remedial map with a second opportunity district to ensure that Black voters have the representation they deserve.
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.
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.”