[ In the 1950s and 60s, southern officials — desperate to
maintain the racial status quo — regularly ignored court orders
affirming the rights of Black Americans. It is happening in 2023.]
[[link removed]]

ALABAMA LEGISLATORS BUCK SUPREME COURT, CLING TO RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY VOTING DISTRICTS  
[[link removed]]


 

Judd Legum
July 19, 2023
Popular Information
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ In the 1950s and 60s, southern officials — desperate to maintain
the racial status quo — regularly ignored court orders affirming the
rights of Black Americans. It is happening in 2023. _

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit sent the legislature a map
demonstrating how easy it was to comply with the court order. The
plaintiffs' map would have a majority of Black voters in District 2,
while maintaining the Black majority in District 7. ,

 

In the 1950s and 60s, southern officials — desperate to maintain the
racial status quo — regularly ignored court orders affirming the
rights of Black Americans. In 1954, for example, the Supreme Court
ruled in _Brown v. Board of Education _that racial segregation of
public schools was unconstitutional. Mississippi Senator James
Eastland (D) immediately declared that “the South will not abide by
nor obey this legislative decision by a political body
[[link removed]].”
Virginia Governor Thomas Bahnson Stanley (D) created the Gray
Commission, which was dedicated to defying _Brown_. Virginia Senator
Harry Byrd (D) created a “Southern Manifesto," signed by more than
100 elected officials who pledged to resist implementing
the _Brown_ decision. As a result, it took continued litigation,
protests, and the National Guard to even begin the integration of
public schools. 

But defying court orders to maintain racially discriminatory policies
is not part of America's past. It is happening in 2023. 

Black people account for more than one-quarter of Alabama's
population. But, for decades, white Republicans have ensured that only
one of Alabama's seven members of Congress is Black. They've
accomplished this by gerrymandering the state's Congressional
districts to limit Black voting power. The process is called "packing"
and "cracking." First, as many Black voters as possible are packed
into a single Congressional district. Then the remaining black voters
are cracked — split into multiple districts — to limit their
voting power. 

Alabama's map for the 2022 election, which is based on the 2020
Census, looks like this:
 

 

Most Black voters are packed into the oddly shaped District 7, shown
in blue. Almost all other Black voters are spread out into Districts
1, 2, and 3, where they make up no more than 30% of the vote.

The map was challenged in federal court by multiple Black Alabama
voters who claimed the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. Section 2 "prohibits voting practices or procedures that
discriminate on the basis of race
[[link removed]]." In making
a determination about whether a map violates Section 2, the court
considers a variety of factors, including "the history of official
voting-related discrimination in the state," "the extent to which
voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is
racially polarized," "the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in
political campaigns," and "the extent to which members of the minority
group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction."

The plaintiffs won a request to block the maps in federal district
court. The court found
[[link removed]] that
"Black Alabamians enjoy virtually zero success in statewide
elections," that political campaigns in Alabama are “characterized
by overt or subtle racial appeals,” and that “Alabama’s
extensive history of repugnant racial and voting-related
discrimination is undeniable and well documented.” 

Alabama, however, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court,
which lifted the injunction
[[link removed]] and
allowed the maps to be used for the 2022 election. The Supreme Court
agreed to consider the case on the merits after the 2022 election, but
many observers thought they would again side with Alabama officials
and gut Section 2's protections against racially discriminatory voting
practices. 

On June 8, 2023, however, the Supreme Court rejected Alabama's maps
[[link removed]],
with Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the court's three liberal
justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. The majority opinion agreed
with the district court's determination that Alabama's maps have a
“racially discriminatory motivation” or an “invidious
purpose.” The maps, the court found, were put into place "'to
minimize or cancel out'  minority voters’ 'ability to elect their
preferred candidates.'"

The Supreme Court's ruling reinstated the district court's order,
which required the Alabama legislature to create new maps. The
district court's decision emphasized that, to comply with the law, the
new maps "will need to include two districts in which Black voters
either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it
[[link removed]]."

The Alabama legislature has until Friday to comply with the district
court's order. But the state's political leaders have chosen to pursue
a different path. 

ALABAMA PRODUCES NEW MAPS WITH THE SAME PROBLEMS

Alabama is on a path to approve new maps before Friday's deadline. But
the new maps do not comply with the district court order and continue
to dilute the Black vote. Specifically, the legislature has failed "to
craft a second majority-Black district
[[link removed]]"
or "something quite close to it." Instead, the new map only still
includes one district, District 7, which is majority Black. It looks
like this:
 

...

The new map, which has already been approved by committees in the
Alabama House and Senate, increases the number of Black voters in
District 2 from about 30% to about 38%
[[link removed]],
according to Republican legislators. The Alabama legislature has
created a district that would have comfortably supported Trump over
Biden in 2020
[[link removed]] and
now claims it complies with the court order. "This map and the process
that led up to it are as deceitful as they are shameful," the National
Redistricting Foundation, an anti-gerrymandering group, said
[[link removed]] of
the new map. "This follows a pattern we have seen throughout history
when it comes to redistricting in Alabama, where a predominately white
and Republican legislature has never done the right thing on its own,
but rather has had to be forced to do so by a court."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit sent the legislature a map demonstrating
how easy it was to comply with the court order. The plaintiffs' map
would have a majority of Black voters in District 2, while maintaining
the Black majority in District 7. 

The legislature ignored this suggestion. 

If the Alabama legislature stays on its current path and approves its
map with only one majority Black district, it will surely find itself
back in court.  Alabama's leaders will have to convince the district
court that the new map complies with the district court's order. But
the district court just had its initial decision, which called for the
creation of a second majority Black district, affirmed by the Supreme
Court. So it would not be surprising for the district court to reject
the legislature's new map and impose its own map that complies with
the law. 
 

_[JUDD LEGUM is founder and author of Popular Information, an
independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism. You can
reach him at [email protected].]_
 

* voting rights
[[link removed]]
* Gerrymandering
[[link removed]]
* Voting Rights Act
[[link removed]]
* Alabama
[[link removed]]
* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]
* SCOTUS
[[link removed]]
* Black voters
[[link removed]]
* minority voters
[[link removed]]
* 2024 Elections
[[link removed]]
* South
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]