Supreme Court hears arguments in key case on Alabama redistricting map
The Supreme Court weighed oral arguments Tuesday over whether Alabama’s new congressional map disenfranchises black voters — with the justices appearing torn along ideological lines in a case that could have repercussions across the country.
At issue in Merrill v. Milligan is a map of the Yellowhammer State’s seven House districts based on the 2020 Census, which civil rights and other liberal groups contend dilutes the political power of black voters.
Although blacks make up 27% of Alabama’s population, they are a majority in only one of the seven districts.
A chapter of the NAACP, a group of Alabama voters and the multi-faith organization Greater Birmingham Ministries sued, saying the map illegally concentrates black voters into a single district and disperses the remainder throughout the state.
The plaintiffs argue that the map hinders their ability to elect their preferred candidates and violates Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that bars discriminating against voters because of race — even if discrimination was not the intent.
They want the map redrawn to create a second majority-black district.
Alabama maintains that elections should remain “race-neutral” and that creating another majority-black district would actually violate the Constitution by requiring “race-based sorting.”
Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour defended the map during the two hours of argument, saying it was drawn up “in a lawful, race-neutral manner.”
“The state largely retained its existing districts and made changes needed to equalize population,” LaCour said. “But that wasn’t good enough for the plaintiffs. They argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to replace its map with a racially gerrymandered plan maximizing the number of majority-minority districts.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the six-justice conservative wing, said while it isn’t necessary to show the state intended to discriminate to prove the map violated Section 2, a reference point is needed to determine whether it improperly affects black voters.
“What about equal opportunity? That’s my concern,” she asked.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor questioned why the Republican-designed map did not carve up predominately white districts the same way it did black ones.
And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, taking part in her second day of arguments since being nominated by President Biden in February, also pushed back against Alabama’s map.
“What we all want” is people to “spread out and live among one another and vote based on their own … views as opposed to along racial lines” but Jackson, the first black woman on the high court, contended that wasn’t what happened in Alabama.
Justice Elena Kagan worried about further dismantling the Voting Rights Act, which has been diluted by previous high court rulings in 2013 and 2021.
“You’re asking us essentially to cut back substantially on our 40 years of precedent and to make this, too, extremely difficult to prevail on, so what’s left?” she asked LaCour.
A three-judge appeals court panel, which included two appointees of former President Donald Trump, ruled unanimously in January that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and agreed that two majority-black districts should be created for the 2022 elections.
But the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s ruling in February, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh insisting the order for a new map came down too close to the Nov. 8 midterm elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in their dissent.
Alabama wants the court to overturn the appeals court’s decision and keep the map in place until the 2030 Census necessitates a redrawn map.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
With Post wires