Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Alabama Redistricting Plan, Costing Republicans a House Seat
The United States Supreme Court has rejected Alabama’s redistricting plan for congressional seats for the second time, dealing a significant blow to the Republican Party. In a unanimous vote, the justices indicated that they may have viewed this map as an act of defiance against the Supreme Court’s previous 5-4 decision on a similar map.
At the center of this dispute is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits state laws that deny or abridge the right to vote based on race. However, the court’s previous decision in Allen v. Milligan, where conservative justices expressed disappointment, left conservatives disheartened.
Over the years, courts have applied the Gingles factors to determine if a state law violates Section 2. These factors make assumptions about how black Americans vote, treating them as a monolithic bloc expected to favor Democrats. Critics argue that these race-based assumptions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates colorblind government.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in refusing to overturn the Gingles factors, citing the principle of stare decisis – the duty to adhere to past precedent. This decision frustrated conservatives who believe it undermines the promise of equal protection under the law.
According to the Gingles factors, Alabama’s map should have included enough black voters in two congressional seats to elect Democrats. However, the state’s map only had one such district, prompting the court to strike it down.
Subsequently, the Alabama legislature drafted a new map. Regrettably for Republicans, a trial court concluded that the revised map would still only result in one House seat going to Democrats. Consequently, the Alabama attorney general requested a stay on the lower court’s decision until the Supreme Court could review the case.
While the Supreme Court declined to grant a stay, the unanimous vote suggests various possible explanations. One possibility is that the court is waiting for a formal petition for certiorari before making a definitive decision. Alternatively, the justices may view this new map as an act of defiance against their previous ruling, as it deviated from the mandates of Allen v. Milligan.
Regardless of the reasoning, this rejection will cost Republicans a seat in the U.S. House, where their slim majority is already at stake. Additionally, estimates suggest that the first Allen decision alone could flip five GOP seats to the Democrats. As Republicans currently control the chamber with a five-seat margin, they will need to make significant gains in the 2024 elections to maintain control.
The case in question is Allen v. Carter (23A241) in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Disclaimer: This article is created to provide general information and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with professional counsel for specific legal concerns.
