Home » US Supreme Court rejects Alabama congressional maps as racially gerrymandered

US Supreme Court rejects Alabama congressional maps as racially gerrymandered

by Derek Andrews
0 comment 4 minutes read Donate

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Courtroom discovered Thursday in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama’s legislature violated the voting rights of Black Alabamians with the composition of the state’s congressional maps. Primarily based upon section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the court docket discovered that Alabama’s newly redrawn congressional maps closed off the political course of to minority voters, denying them equal alternative in Alabama’s voting processes. Alabama’s legislature should now redraw the maps, which beforehand “packed” many of the state’s Black inhabitants into simply one among Alabama’s seven congressional districts.

Plaintiffs filed the case in November 2021 as a result of they claimed that the way in which the Alabama legislature drew the state’s congressional maps was “malapportioned and racially gerrymandered.” Regardless of Black residents accounting for 27 % of Alabama’s inhabitants, the legislature “packed” practically the entire state’s Black voters into one congressional district. The plaintiffs argued that this decreased Black voters’ proper to equal voting energy underneath the Voting Rights Act, particularly when in comparison with the state’s different six majority-white congressional districts.

Writing for almost all, Chief Justice Roberts relied upon Thornburg v. Gingles precedent which established a three-prong check to judge part 2 claims underneath the Voting Rights Act. The court docket bolstered using the three-pronged Gingles evaluation: (1) the minority group bringing the part 2 declare should be “sufficiently massive and…compact” sufficient to represent a majority in one of many state’s districts; (2) the minority group should present it’s politically cohesive; and (3) the minority group should present that the state’s white majority carries sufficient voting energy “to defeat the minority’s most well-liked candidate.”

The court docket discovered that the plaintiffs happy all three prongs on this case, upholding the decrease court docket’s resolution. The court docket discovered no cause to disturb a district court docket discovering within the case, which commented that “Black Alabamians take pleasure in just about zero success in statewide elections.”

The court docket then rejected Alabama’s makes an attempt to vary the court docket’s method to part 2 claims. Alabama first argued that their map, versus maps generated by the plaintiffs, ought to win out as a result of they adhered to an older model of the congressional map. The court docket disagreed, saying, “If that have been the rule, a State may immunize from problem a brand new racial discriminatory redistricting plan just by claiming that it resembled an outdated racially discriminatory plan.” Alabama then argued that the court docket ought to as an alternative undertake a “race-neutral benchmark” to resolve part 2 claims, whereby laptop mapping software program generates congressional maps with out contemplating race in any respect. The court docket stated such a benchmark would fail to account for the totality of the circumstances and located it “compelling neither in idea nor in apply.”

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen—the named defendant in Thursday’s resolution—stated he was “upset” within the court docket’s resolution. Nonetheless, Allen swore to “adjust to all relevant election legal guidelines” shifting ahead in redrawing the state’s maps.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) labeled the choice a “historic win for voting rights,” and the Nationwide Redistricting Basis (NRF) referred to as it “a landmark second to maneuver the needle in the proper course.”

Plaintiffs from the case additionally launched a joint statement, studying partly, “At the moment, the Supreme Courtroom reminded them of that duty by ordering a brand new map be drawn that complies with federal legislation – one which acknowledges the variety in our state quite than erasing it.”

Source / Picture: jurist.org

Donation for Author

Buy author a coffee

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 4.5 / 5. Vote count: 2

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

@2023 LawyersRankings.com. All Right Reserved.