The Supreme Court’s Decision on Alabama’s Congressional Map
The Supreme Court recently allowed Alabama to use a congressional map that is expected to benefit Republicans in this year’s midterm elections. This decision permits the state to eliminate one of two House districts represented by a Black member of Congress who is also a Democrat. The court addressed the case in an unsigned order, which was opposed by the three liberal justices. Despite the fact that Alabama has already held its congressional primaries, the ruling means that the state will likely have six Republican members of Congress next year, with only one Democrat.
This decision is part of a broader trend where the Supreme Court has been involved in redistricting efforts across several states. These efforts are largely influenced by the desire of the Republican Party to maintain control of the House in the upcoming midterms. Over the past few months, the Supreme Court has had a hand in congressional maps in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Virginia, and California. Most of these decisions have favored the Republican Party.
Legal Doctrine and the Purcell Principle
The court’s order on its emergency docket relies on a legal doctrine known as the Purcell principle. This principle prevents federal courts from intervening in election disputes close to an election to change voting rules. In this case, the court stated that the District Court improperly interfered with Alabama’s efforts to conduct its 2026 congressional elections under maps selected by its elected representatives.
The majority opinion argued that the District Court’s view that conducting elections under court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the state was not a valid justification for intervention. While federal courts should avoid making changes close to an election, the court noted that states are free to decide whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.
Dissent from Liberal Justices
The decision drew sharp criticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined by the other two liberal justices, issued a dissent. Sotomayor wrote that the court is facing a record of turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought. She added that as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos.
Sotomayor emphasized her commitment to defending the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy. She concluded by stating that she respectfully dissents.
Impact of the Voting Rights Act Decision
The Alabama case is tied to the Supreme Court’s April 29 decision on the Voting Rights Act, which significantly weakened the ability of groups to bring claims of racial discrimination under the 1965 landmark law. This decision now requires voting rights groups to find a “strong inference” of intentional racial discrimination before proceeding with a lawsuit.
Several Southern states, including Tennessee and Florida, have quickly redrawn their maps to advantage the Republican Party. Even though Alabama already held its primary election in May, Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for the affected congressional districts if courts allow the state to use its new map.
Democratic Representatives and Electoral Uncertainty
Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures in the 2nd District and Terri Sewell in the 7th District are the two Black members of the state’s seven-seat congressional delegation. With the new map, Republicans could reclaim Figures’ district, but the exact outcome of the electoral process remains unclear before the midterms.
Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, pointed out that the court’s ruling shows an inconsistent application of its own precedent. He noted that while the animating premise of the Purcell principle is that federal courts should stay their hand as election day draws near, the ruling is the third different time the justices have intervened in ongoing election processes in the five weeks since the merits decision in the Louisiana case.
Alabama’s Legal History with the Supreme Court
Alabama’s legal battle over its maps has repeatedly reached the Supreme Court in recent years. In 2023, the Supreme Court effectively required Alabama to redraw its congressional map to allow for an additional Black district. This decision upheld a lower court finding that the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by enacting a discriminatory map.
Voters in Alabama cast their 2024 ballots under a court-drawn congressional map that led to the election of two Black and Democratic representatives out of seven seats. However, Alabama continued to challenge that map on appeal, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision in late April. Based on that decision, Alabama rushed to the Supreme Court in early May asking the justices to toss out the court-ordered map used in 2024 in time for this year’s midterm elections. The court’s conservative majority agreed to that request on May 11, despite the dissent of three liberal justices.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
A special three-judge court in Alabama unanimously rejected the state’s map again last week, ruling that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act, even with the Supreme Court’s new high standard, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This panel included two judges appointed by Trump and a third named by President Bill Clinton.
“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the panel wrote.
