One-Third of Six Is Two: The Fight for Fair Districts Wages On in Alabama and Louisiana

In an incredible and long-overdue win for voters, a federal court picked Alabama’s new 2024 congressional map drawn by a court-appointed special master. The plan has two districts — the 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts — where Black voters will have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

The new 2024 congressional districts will now comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Unfortunately, for voters, particularly Black voters in Alabama, the road to a fair map has been an unnecessarily difficult one met with defiance from Republicans at almost every turn. 

Alabama’s new, fair and representative map would not be possible without a long-fought court battle brought by voters and civil rights groups back in 2021. After three Supreme Court rulings and well-practiced, but unprecedented, defiance from Republicans, Alabama will finally have a fair congressional map with a second Black-opportunity district — for the first time ever — in place for the 2024 elections.

Read more about the long story of how we got here below.

Similarly, the fight for fair representation in Louisiana has dragged on for years. But — just in time for 2024 — it seems to be coming to a head. Last Friday, Louisiana voters asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pause its decision delaying the drawing of a new, fair congressional map with a second majority-Black district. The 5th Circuit immediately denied the request.

Not to be deterred, Louisiana voters then filed an emergency petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a 5th Circuit decision that is delaying the creation of a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. 

On Monday, Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees all emergency applications for the 5th Circuit, asked Louisiana to respond by Tuesday, Oct. 10. Alito can either decide to grant or deny the stay himself or refer the matter to the entire Court. Read more about what has happened and what may happen next here.

For those seeking to dismantle the manufactured electoral supremacy in Louisiana, the ask for fair maps is straightforward. During the process, former state Rep. Ted James (D) pushed for a second majority-Black district considering that Black people made up a third of the state’s population. He boiled his argument down to the simple mantra: “One-third of six is two.”

Oral argument in the 5th Circuit on Republicans’ appeal of the decision that blocked Louisiana’s congressional map last year will be held today at 10 a.m. EDT. Follow along with Democracy Docket’s live updates on the hearing here. 

One, Two, Three New Voting Rights Lawsuits Filed This Week

This week the fight for access to the ballot box is ramping up across the country — and in two instances with novel approaches. 

On Monday, four individual Wisconsin voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Wisconsin law that requires absentee voters to complete their ballots in the presence of a witness who can attest to the voter’s eligibility. 

The Wisconsin voters behind the new lawsuit allege that the absentee ballot witness requirement violates Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of a citizen’s failure to comply with a “test or device,” including the “requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting…prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.” 

• The lawsuit highlights the legislative origins of Section 201 of the VRA, which was enacted in order to outlaw a discriminatory post-Civil War voting practice adopted by many southern states wherein a prospective voter would need a “supporting witness” to affirm their qualifications. The complaint notes, “This rule empowered registered White voters to prevent otherwise qualified Black neighbors from accessing the franchise by refusing to vouch for their eligibility.”

Also on Monday, the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans filed a federal lawsuit challenging a North Carolina anti-voting law that requires voters to reside in the state for at least 30 days prior to the election in which they seek to vote.

• The lawsuit contends that the “arbitrary” durational residency requirement violates Section 202 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from preventing otherwise eligible voters from voting for president and vice president based on how long they have resided in the state before Election Day. The complaint also claims that the requirement contravenes the First and 14th Amendments by placing an undue burden on the right to vote. 

On Tuesday, four voters who are blind or have a print disability and the National Federation of the Blind of Alabama filed a lawsuit against absentee election managers for Tuscaloosa, Mobile and Jefferson counties challenging Alabama’s inaccessible absentee voting system.

• The plaintiffs argue that Alabama’s absentee voting process is not accessible and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs request that the defendants remedy this violation by implementing a remote accessible mail-in voting system that includes electronic delivery and return of ballots for people with vision and print disabilities for all future elections.  

Little-D Democratic Progress in New York Swings on a Pendulum

On Monday, Democrats on New York’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) released a statement asking for public input on the state’s congressional map. 

The statement comes as the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, is considering an appeal of a lower court decision that ordered the IRC to draw a new congressional map. The lower court decision has been paused pending appeal since July, and last month the state’s highest court declined to unpause the decision.

With Democrats on the commission now having shown their commitment to restarting the map drawing process, it remains to be seen whether Republicans on the IRC will cooperate, as they have refused to do so previously. 

Oral argument on the Empire State’s congressional map is scheduled for Nov. 15. 

The legislative pendulum is also swinging. After New York Democrats put their trifecta to work and enacted 10 pro-voting laws, Republicans in the state fought back, filing their second lawsuit challenging the state’s mail-in voting laws in less than a month.

Last Friday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), New York congressional Democrats — including U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Yvette Clarke,  Ritchie Torres, Joseph Morelle and Grace Meng — and voters filed a motion to intervene in this most recent Republican lawsuit, stepping in once again to defend the state’s much-needed voting laws. This comes just weeks after the DCCC and Democrats similarly stepped in to defend a 2021 mail-in voting law from a GOP lawsuit that seeks to block the pro-voting law before 2024. 

Yesterday, in the other Republican mail-in ballot lawsuit, a New York court held a hearing to determine if the new absentee voting law will be blocked as litigation continues.

Wisconsin Republicans Are Having A Meltdown That Would Make a Toddler Proud

On Tuesday, Republicans on the Wisconsin Senate elections committee voted to remove Gov. Tony Evers' (D) appointee from the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission. The matter heads to the full Senate for a vote, which is likely to take place next week.

The atypical vote on Evers’ Democratic appointee is not happening within a vacuum. Republicans are embroiled in efforts — which are allegedly illegal and currently being challenged in court by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) — to remove the state’s top elections official, Meagan Wolfe, from her role as WEC’s chief administrator. 

Finally, but certainly not least, Wisconsin Republicans are also threatening to impeach state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz — elected by an 11-point margin in April — if she does not recuse herself from two looming redistricting lawsuits. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) has created a secret panel to explore the possibility.

Students IDs Up For Target Practice in Idaho

On Monday, an Idaho judge dismissed a state-level lawsuit challenging a set of Idaho voter suppression laws that eliminate the use of student IDs as an acceptable form of identification for voter registration and in-person voting. The court held that the challenged laws do not burden the right to vote or the right to equal protection under the Idaho Constitution. 

Critically, a federal lawsuit challenging the ID requirement is ongoing. The presence of one of the plaintiffs, March For Our Lives Idaho, calls to mind the unnerving fact that student IDs are not accepted as valid voter ID in the state, but concealed carry licenses are. 

More News

• Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) approved ballot language for a constitutional amendment that would create an independent redistricting commission. Yost had previously rejected language for the proposed amendment two separate times.

• The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a case challenging Texas voter suppression law Senate Bill 1111. Latino civil rights groups had asked the Court to reverse a 5th Circuit decision dismissing the lawsuit for lack of standing. This case is over and the law remains in place.

• A federal judge dismissed a case filed by a voting rights group and voters arguing that Arkansas' error-prone signature matching process violates the First and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act.

• A federal court rejected a request from Dinesh D’Souza and the entities behind the debunked election propaganda movie “2000 Mules” to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that they violated the Ku Klux Klan Act. The case will continue.

OPINION: This Supreme Court Case Could Devastate the Rule of Law

By Rakim Brooks, a public interest appellate lawyer and the president of Alliance for Justice. As a contributor to Democracy Docket, Brooks writes about issues relating to our state and federal courts as well as reforms to our judicial systems. Read more ➡️

We are reading this report from the Movement Advancement Project on the country’s ID divide. An article that dives into the report highlights how these suppressive policies impact transgender and nonbinary people. Did you know that nearly seven in 10 transgender Americans (68%) do not have valid or accurate ID?

This gap prevents some of our most vulnerable from fully participating in our democracy at a time when conservative politicians are targeting the community across the country. Most recently, the attacks came from Republicans in Wisconsin. 

On this week’s episode of Defending Democracy, Marc and Paige speak with Anderson Clayton, the Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party about U.S. House Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the looming veto overrides, redistricting and the party’s push to include youth voters! Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.