Supreme Court orders Alabama voting maps redrawn in win for Black voters

The left is Alabama's current legislative map showing the counties within each district. On the right is the new proposed map legislators passed last year but three federal judges struck it down, but in essence, what they did was went in like ***, *** sort of like *** pyramid and pull out those votes. And then yet the district goes all the way down to Selma and beyond. State. Senator Roger Smitherman says the map that was passed pulls *** significant number of black votes out of certain counties, which he says is unconstitutional without taking consideration of the impact that it was going to have on African American. I think it was just drawn primarily because they were trying to get votes to pass them out. Redistricting council for N *** AC P Legal Defense Fund, Catherine Sada helped fight the case in court saying the new map violates parts of the Voting Rights Act. I think this is *** huge cause for celebration and *** cause for uh you know, um uh renewed hope and bipartisanship. Sada says redrawing *** fair map gives hope. Communities with *** majority of black voters could have two state representatives, which means federal funding and the, you know, the opportunity to really make *** difference in schools and rural health care in the Alabama Black Belt and better, uh, you know, public infrastructure could recognize an opportunity district that, that would give African Americans, uh, two opportunities um to represent the state income.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Alabama officials to redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black.The decision – that affords additional opportunities for minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice – comes as a surprise given the conservative majority on the court.Supporters of voting rights had feared that the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.Chief Justice John Roberts penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court’s three liberals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the key parts of the holding, providing the fifth vote.“We are content to reject Alabama’s invitation to change existing law,” Roberts said.The fact that Roberts penned the decision is a surprise given that 10 years ago, the chief justice effectively gutted a separate section of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing election laws.In recent years, Section 2 has been instrumental in paving the way for minority voters to more fully participate in the political process, especially as they combat maps that appear to be neutral but actually entrench racial polarization.Roberts wrote Thursday that Section 2 “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States is, of course, not new,” but he said the opinion “does not diminish or disregard these concerns” he said.“It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here,” Roberts said. Alabama’s argument “runs headlong into our precedent.”“A district is not equally open, in other words, when minority voters face – unlike their majority peers – bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the State, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter. ”Justice Clarence Thomas, in part of a dissent that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, asserted that the Voting Rights Act should not apply to redistricting.“At the outset, I would resolve these cases in a way that would not require the Federal Judiciary to decide the correct racial apportionment of Alabama’s congressional seats,” Thomas wrote, adding that he believed the VRA’s text focused “on ballot access and counting.”

MONTGOMERY, Ala. —

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Alabama officials to redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black.

The decision – that affords additional opportunities for minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice – comes as a surprise given the conservative majority on the court.

Supporters of voting rights had feared that the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court’s three liberals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the key parts of the holding, providing the fifth vote.

“We are content to reject Alabama’s invitation to change existing law,” Roberts said.

The fact that Roberts penned the decision is a surprise given that 10 years ago, the chief justice effectively gutted a separate section of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing election laws.

In recent years, Section 2 has been instrumental in paving the way for minority voters to more fully participate in the political process, especially as they combat maps that appear to be neutral but actually entrench racial polarization.

Roberts wrote Thursday that Section 2 “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States is, of course, not new,” but he said the opinion “does not diminish or disregard these concerns” he said.

“It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here,” Roberts said. Alabama’s argument “runs headlong into our precedent.”

“A district is not equally open, in other words, when minority voters face – unlike their majority peers – bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the State, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter. ”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in part of a dissent that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, asserted that the Voting Rights Act should not apply to redistricting.

“At the outset, I would resolve these cases in a way that would not require the Federal Judiciary to decide the correct racial apportionment of Alabama’s congressional seats,” Thomas wrote, adding that he believed the VRA’s text focused “on ballot access and counting.”

��vlog