WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Alabama in a challenge to its recently redrawn congressional districts, affirming a lower court decision that ruled the map likely denied Black voters in that state an additional member in the U.S. House of Representatives.
At issue are the congressional boundaries Alabama lawmakers drew following the 2020 census that include one district out of seven with a majority of Black voters. African Americans account for more than a quarter of the state’s overall population.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s 5-4 opinion and was joined in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh. Four of the court’s conservatives − Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Sam Alito − dissented.
The case was the latest to test the scope of the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 law intended to ensure African Americans are not discriminated against at the ballot box. The Supreme Court has weakened the reach of that law in a series of recent decisions at a time when voting itself has become an increasingly partisan issue.
Alabama told the high court that the once-in-a-decade changes to its previous districts were race-neutral and asserted that federal law shouldn’t compel states to draw additional minority districts just because such districts were possible to draw. But the voters challenging Alabama’s map said the state’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would significantly undermine its purpose.
During oral arguments in October, both the conservative and liberal justices seemed to wrestle with the implications of the state’s sweeping argument. Led by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative wing seemed to be searching for a more narrow outcome that would still be a win for Alabama.
The case is Merrill v. Milligan.
In some states the redistricting process is governed by a non-partisan body, but the endeavor is more often a political one – led by state lawmakers who seek an advantage for their party. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts would not get involved in disputes about partisan gerrymandering.
But racial gerrymandering is another matter, in part because of the Voting Rights Act.
A 1986 Supreme Court decision, Thornburg v. Gingles, sets forth how federal courts are supposed to determine when a congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act. Courts must first consider factors such as whether there is a majority group large enough and compact enough to make up a district. Plaintiffs also must demonstrate that white residents vote together cohesively enough to defeat a minority group’s candidate.
Applying that standard, a three-judge federal court ruled against Alabama last year, concluding that the congressional map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The court said it didn’t regard the question of whether the maps violated the law “as a close one.” Two of the three judges were nominated by a Republican president.
Responding to an emergency appeal last year, a divided Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use the map in the 2022 midterm elections while the litigation continued. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the ruling maintained the status quo ahead of what was then the state’s upcoming primary elections.
Alabama has only one Black member of Congress: Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat.
